"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[protectionist]

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen, regardless of what oldgloryhole thinks he understands about "rights."

FALSE! See post # 132.

False- see the 14th Amendment.

Anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a U.S. citizen.

As millions and millions of U.S. passport holders can attest to.

FALSE! See post # 132.

 

[protectionist]

I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.

The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.

Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.

You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.

IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.

IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.

There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen. 10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one. There are millions of parents who simply would bother. Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born. Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.

Oh the horror. It's not like if the law were changed that "would be" parents wouldn't be able to get a BC prior to the birth of their child if they didn't have one. They say they don't know how to get one? Are you for real? Excuse after excuse. Just like the voter ID laws. If it is determined that a child was born from illegal alien parents what do you mean they couldn't be deported right along with their parents? If illegal aliens knew that they wouldn't come here and give birth on our soil in the first place.

Some don't know where their parents were born? Well, who the hell is giving birth to them other than their mother? No one is advocating for this to be retroactive. It would be for future births after the law is passed/clarified.

Nearly every modern day industrialized country requires that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship. I am sure they have worked out the details which includes every strawman argument that you have thrown out there.

The fact is we have millions of poor parents; some with children they don't want, others that are just to lazy to bother with ordering birth certificates and still others who left their kids to the care of foster parents, relatives, and friends. Most of these kids aren't going have any documents to prove there're citizens and neither will many of their kids. Just look at France. They have so many undocumented French kids as well as kids of illegal aliens, there're making them all French citizens when they turn 18.

The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation. Not that we're going to round up any of them for deportation, but it we do, you can bet most of them are going claim there're Americans with no proof of citizens.

And all this for the silly idea that it would actually reduce the number undocumented immigrants in the country when it would actually increase the number. .

Deporting illegal aliens is going to INcrease the number of illegal aliens in the country ? HA HA. So I guess you don't kill mosquitos in your house, because you think that would increase their numbers. Are you feeling OK ? I mean really.

You seem to be having a reading problem so I'll repeat, "The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation."

Calling illegal aliens "undocumented persons" is about the equivalent of calling bank robbers "informal withdrawl agents"

 

[protectionist]

There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen. 10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one. There are millions of parents who simply would bother. Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born. Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.

Oh the horror. It's not like if the law were changed that "would be" parents wouldn't be able to get a BC prior to the birth of their child if they didn't have one. They say they don't know how to get one? Are you for real? Excuse after excuse. Just like the voter ID laws. If it is determined that a child was born from illegal alien parents what do you mean they couldn't be deported right along with their parents? If illegal aliens knew that they wouldn't come here and give birth on our soil in the first place.

Some don't know where their parents were born? Well, who the hell is giving birth to them other than their mother? No one is advocating for this to be retroactive. It would be for future births after the law is passed/clarified.

Nearly every modern day industrialized country requires that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship. I am sure they have worked out the details which includes every strawman argument that you have thrown out there.

The fact is we have millions of poor parents; some with children they don't want, others that are just to lazy to bother with ordering birth certificates and still others who left their kids to the care of foster parents, relatives, and friends. Most of these kids aren't going have any documents to prove there're citizens and neither will many of their kids. Just look at France. They have so many undocumented French kids as well as kids of illegal aliens, there're making them all French citizens when they turn 18.

The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation. Not that we're going to round up any of them for deportation, but it we do, you can bet most of them are going claim there're Americans with no proof of citizens.

And all this for the silly idea that it would actually reduce the number undocumented immigrants in the country when it would actually increase the number. .

Deporting illegal aliens is going to INcrease the number of illegal aliens in the country ? HA HA. So I guess you don't kill mosquitos in your house, because you think that would increase their numbers. Are you feeling OK ? I mean really.

You seem to be having a reading problem so I'll repeat, "The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation."

what the hell is "jus soli" ?

duplicaTE

 

[protectionist]

For those who need educating on this subject:

The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies

“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).

The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.

To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.

Absolutely false. The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so. It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.

Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

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

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[protectionist]

xxxx

 

[Flopper]

Denying American citizens their citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' alleged immigration status would not only violate the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, it would also violate the Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; that an immigrant is undocumented doesn't mean he's 'illegal,' as undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process of the law, where one is not 'illegal' until such time as that is determined in a court of law. Indeed, an undocumented immigrant might be eligible for legal status as a refugee. And to deny the child born of an undocumented immigrant his citizenship before his parents' status is determined in a court of law would violate the child's due process rights.

Moreover, to seek to disadvantage US citizens only because of their parents' undetermined immigration status would violate the equal protection rights of those citizen children by attempting to deny them their citizenship rights absent a rational basis, without documented evidence in support, and devoid of a proper legislative end; to so disadvantage American citizens is motivated only as a consequence of animus toward these citizens.

You're grasping at straws here. Whether or not one has due process if one is in this country illegally yes they are an illegal alien. There is nothing in the 14th that grants children of illegal aliens birthright citizenship. In fact it is clear that is doesn't. There is no such lingo in our immigration laws for a category called "undocumented immigrant". It is just a made up PC term by the pro-illegals.

Now, since you're another one that I don't agree with on the 14th's intent are willing to at least join the movement to push legislation that will require that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident of our county in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship?

By denying citizenship and making them illegal, you will not be stopping the birth of these kids. You will just be producing more illegal residents which means higher crime rates, poverty, and increasing numbers undocumented kids.

They should be deported right along with their parents. Denying them citizenship will have the opposite affect as you are claiming because it will be one incentive removed to come here illegally in the fist place. There is no denying that.

That myth has already been debunked. 340,000 a year will joint the ranks of the undocumented.

 

[protectionist]

I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.

The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.

Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.

You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.

IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.

IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.

There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen. 10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one. There are millions of parents who simply would bother. Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born. Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.

Oh the horror. It's not like if the law were changed that "would be" parents wouldn't be able to get a BC prior to the birth of their child if they didn't have one. They say they don't know how to get one? Are you for real? Excuse after excuse. Just like the voter ID laws. If it is determined that a child was born from illegal alien parents what do you mean they couldn't be deported right along with their parents? If illegal aliens knew that they wouldn't come here and give birth on our soil in the first place.

Some don't know where their parents were born? Well, who the hell is giving birth to them other than their mother? No one is advocating for this to be retroactive. It would be for future births after the law is passed/clarified.

Nearly every modern day industrialized country requires that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship. I am sure they have worked out the details which includes every strawman argument that you have thrown out there.

The fact is we have millions of poor parents; some with children they don't want, others that are just to lazy to bother with ordering birth certificates and still others who left their kids to the care of foster parents, relatives, and friends. Most of these kids aren't going have any documents to prove there're citizens and neither will many of their kids. Just look at France. They have so many undocumented French kids as well as kids of illegal aliens, there're making them all French citizens when they turn 18.

The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation. Not that we're going to round up any of them for deportation, but it we do, you can bet most of them are going claim there're Americans with no proof of citizens.

And all this for the silly idea that it would actually reduce the number undocumented immigrants in the country when it would actually increase the number. .

Deporting illegal aliens is going to INcrease the number of illegal aliens in the country ? HA HA. So I guess you don't kill mosquitos in your house, because you think that would increase their numbers. Are you feeling OK ? I mean really.

You seem to be having a reading problem so I'll repeat, "The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation."

I won't even ask for an explanation of this lunacy, since it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is pure JIBBERISH.

 

[protectionist]

Denying American citizens their citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' alleged immigration status would not only violate the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, it would also violate the Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; that an immigrant is undocumented doesn't mean he's 'illegal,' as undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process of the law, where one is not 'illegal' until such time as that is determined in a court of law. Indeed, an undocumented immigrant might be eligible for legal status as a refugee. And to deny the child born of an undocumented immigrant his citizenship before his parents' status is determined in a court of law would violate the child's due process rights.

Moreover, to seek to disadvantage US citizens only because of their parents' undetermined immigration status would violate the equal protection rights of those citizen children by attempting to deny them their citizenship rights absent a rational basis, without documented evidence in support, and devoid of a proper legislative end; to so disadvantage American citizens is motivated only as a consequence of animus toward these citizens.

You're grasping at straws here. Whether or not one has due process if one is in this country illegally yes they are an illegal alien. There is nothing in the 14th that grants children of illegal aliens birthright citizenship. In fact it is clear that is doesn't. There is no such lingo in our immigration laws for a category called "undocumented immigrant". It is just a made up PC term by the pro-illegals.

Now, since you're another one that I don't agree with on the 14th's intent are willing to at least join the movement to push legislation that will require that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident of our county in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship?

By denying citizenship and making them illegal, you will not be stopping the birth of these kids. You will just be producing more illegal residents which means higher crime rates, poverty, and increasing numbers undocumented kids.

They should be deported right along with their parents. Denying them citizenship will have the opposite affect as you are claiming because it will be one incentive removed to come here illegally in the fist place. There is no denying that.

That myth has already been debunked. 340,000 a year will joint the ranks of the undocumented.

Yeah ? "Debunked" where ? By whom ? When ? How would deporting people, cause there to be MORE people in the US ? Are they going to grow out of bean pods ? (like in the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers ?)

How could there be more aliens in the US, if a new Operation Wetback (total mass deportation including anchor babies) was enacted ?

 

[Flopper]

What if it doesn't?

That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.

Mark

It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.

Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell outta having it decided for us.

Mark

We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.

If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

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

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

How can you read the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity? The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws. Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?

The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous. The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense. At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen. Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens? At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.

 

[Syriusly]

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen, regardless of what oldgloryhole thinks he understands about "rights."

FALSE! See post # 132.

False- see the 14th Amendment.

Anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a U.S. citizen.

As millions and millions of U.S. passport holders can attest to.

FALSE! See post # 132.

False- see the 14th Amendment.

Anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a U.S. citizen.

As millions and millions of U.S. passport holders can attest to

 

[Syriusly]

For those who need educating on this subject:

The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies

“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).

The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.

To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.

Absolutely false. The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so. It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.

Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

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

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

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

Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.

Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly

Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.

 

[Flopper]

For those who need educating on this subject:

The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies

“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).

The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.

To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.

Absolutely false. The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so. It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.

Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

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

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

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

Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.

Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly

Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.

If Howard's intent was to exclude the children of foreigners, then why did he move to amend Section One by adding the citizenship clause to read, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”? Surely he didn't believe the United States had no jurisdiction over these children.

14th Amendment Site

 

[protectionist]

That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.

Mark

It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.

Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell outta having it decided for us.

Mark

We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.

If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

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

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

How can you read the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity? The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws. Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?

The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous. The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense. At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen. Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens? At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.

YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464) What's the matter ? Don't you believe him ?

 

[protectionist]

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen, regardless of what oldgloryhole thinks he understands about "rights."

FALSE! See post # 132.

False- see the 14th Amendment.

Anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a U.S. citizen.

As millions and millions of U.S. passport holders can attest to.

FALSE! See post # 132.

False- see the 14th Amendment.

Anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a U.S. citizen.

As millions and millions of U.S. passport holders can attest to

FALSE! See the 14th amendment and the explanation of it, by it's author.

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

 

[protectionist]

For those who need educating on this subject:

The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies

“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).

The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.

To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.

Absolutely false. The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so. It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.

Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

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

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

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

Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.

Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly

Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.

Don't talk stupid. You can't rewrite history. Who the hell do you think you're talking to, asshole ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For those who need educating on this subject:

The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies

“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).

The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.

To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.

Absolutely false. The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so. It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.

Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

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

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

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

Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.

Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly

Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.

Don't talk stupid. You can't rewrite history. Who the hell do you think you're talking to, asshole ?

That you have an unwarranted fear and hatred of Hispanics is not justification to seek to deny American citizens their citizenship.

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

The Amendment makes no reference whatsoever to the condition of one's parents as a prerequisite for citizenship.

 

[80zephyr]

It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself. It's an ample term for the situation. Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil. No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did. You're just spinning the truth now.

Actually I have seen anti-immigrants on your side call 'anchor babies' 'turds spit out by illegal immigrants'- and yes I have seen anti-immigrants on your side say that the children are illegals also.

Because actually- according to your misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment- if children of illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens- then they are illegal aliens and committed a crime by being born here.

How does one commit a crime by being born?

LOL- well if they are not born citizens when they are born in the United States- and they are not the children of diplomats- clearly they would be entering the country without valid authorization.....

My point is you can't commit a crime by being born. For the child, it is a passive event beyond the child's control. After birth, the child is technical committing a crime by living here. However, whether that crime can be prosecuted depends on the age of responsibility which varies with the crime and the state..

Yeah- my post was mostly intended to tweak the noses of those who insist that the children born of illegal aliens in the United States somehow are differently legally than the children of legal aliens born in the United States.

Note- not a single one of these 'defenders of the 14th Amendment' will even attempt to explain how children born in this country to aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Notice how not one of them attempted to address the Supreme Court's clear enunciation that illegal aliens in this country are indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Dred Scott was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever made- but I don't think anyone tried to pretend that the United States could just ignore what the Supreme Court decided. Instead our country passed an amendment to in effect overrule Dred Scott.

If those folks don't like the 14th Amendment- then the amendment process is there for them to pursue.

Yes, children born here are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. And? Their illegal parents are also subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Does that make the parents citizens? If not, why does it extend to their children?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.

Mark

It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.

Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell outta having it decided for us.

Mark

We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.

If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

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

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

And ignore the language.

Which means use whichever interpretation fits the whimsy of the current political atmosphere.

The only question in the 14th Amendment is whether or not illegal aliens fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.

And the Supreme Court has already ruled that they do.

In order to argue for going for 'original intent' - you have to actually ignore what the 14th Amendment says.

And once you do that, anyone can argue it means anything.

I think you have that backwards. Like Jefferson said, you can twist words into any meaning you want. The ONLY THING that should be considered is the original intent.

Without using original intent, are you not doing what you are claiming here? Interpreting words to fit what you believe they say, not what they were meant to say?

And if you are, can't we also do that to every word in the Constitution?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

For those who need educating on this subject:

The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies

“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).

The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.

To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.

Absolutely false. The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so. It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.

Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

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

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

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

Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.

Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly

Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.

Don't talk stupid. You can't rewrite history. Who the hell do you think you're talking to, asshole ?

That you have an unwarranted fear and hatred of Hispanics is not justification to seek to deny American citizens their citizenship.

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

The Amendment makes no reference whatsoever to the condition of one's parents as a prerequisite for citizenship.

No one hates or fears Hispanics. I have them I my family. Personally, I am of Polish descent, and if illegal Poles are here, I want their asses OUT.

Are you now saying I hate or fear white people?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.

Mark

It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.

Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell outta having it decided for us.

Mark

We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.

If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

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

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

How can you read the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity? The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws. Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?

The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous. The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense. At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen. Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens? At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.

There are people that claim the 2nd Amendment does not allow for individual ownership of guns, only militias. They "interpret" what they read to suit their agenda. To them the language is "clear".

Now, using original intent as Jefferson stated, it would be impossible to make such a claim. Same logic applies here.

Mark