"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[JoeMoma]

Let's humor Oldglory for the moment. Perhaps the correct interpretation of the 14th ammendment is that children of illegal immergrants born in the United States are not citizens of the United States. The law is not currently being applied that way and children born to illegal immigrants are being given birth right citizenship. The likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule differently after so many years of the law being enforced this way is practically zero. The only way I know to change this is through constitutional amendment. Arguing that the 14th amendment is being interpreted incorrectly is a moot point.

I personally beleive that much of the federal goverment has exceeded the limits that the founders intended as outlined by the constitution. However, that horse has already left the barn.

I don't care for your sarcastic remark about humoring me. WTH does that mean? Bucking to be another one on my ignore list?

I am actually on your side that children of illegal immergrants should not have birthright citizenship. However, I know of no cases that could go to the Supreme Court to challenge how the U.S. goverment currently interprets the constitution on this issue.

 

[Oldglory1]

Let's humor Oldglory for the moment. Perhaps the correct interpretation of the 14th ammendment is that children of illegal immergrants born in the United States are not citizens of the United States. The law is not currently being applied that way and children born to illegal immigrants are being given birth right citizenship. The likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule differently after so many years of the law being enforced this way is practically zero. The only way I know to change this is through constitutional amendment. Arguing that the 14th amendment is being interpreted incorrectly is a moot point.

I personally beleive that much of the federal goverment has exceeded the limits that the founders intended as outlined by the constitution. However, that horse has already left the barn.

I don't care for your sarcastic remark about humoring me. WTH does that mean? Bucking to be another one on my ignore list?

I am actually on your side that children of illegal immergrants should not have birthright citizenship. However, I know of no cases that could go to the Supreme Court to challenge how the U.S. goverment currently interprets the constitution on this issue.

Why couldn't they? There has been a bill lagging outside of committee in congress for two years now. Eventually the sheet is going to hit the fan over the millions invading our country illegally and giving birth on our soil which is costing us dearly and it is going to reach critical mass. PC is going to go by the wayside then.

 

[Oldglory1]

One, of course the issue is serious.

Two, you are too serious.

Three, only a few folks feel like you do about anchor babies, most don't care it all.

Four, SCOTUS has given no indication that it would even look at a petition.

Five, you have a serious educational awareness program to get going.

Good luck.

It's never being too serious for us to get serious about this costly problem. Only a few feel as I do? New High 65 Oppose Automatic Citizenship for Children Born Here to Illegal Immigrants - Rasmussen Reports trade

I have no idea what your last sentence means.

 

[1751_Texan]

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 ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause. Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen." Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.

 

[Oldglory1]

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 ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause. Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen." Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.

It wouldn't be changing the Constitution if the SC merely looked at all the arguments and intent of the writer's of the 14th at the time. It would merely be re-interpreted the way it was meant to be. You are correct though if it's about an actual amendment it does have to go through congress.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, of course the issue is serious.

Two, you are too serious.

Three, only a few folks feel like you do about anchor babies, most don't care it all.

Four, SCOTUS has given no indication that it would even look at a petition.

Five, you have a serious educational awareness program to get going.

Good luck.

It's never being too serious for us to get serious about this costly problem. Only a few feel as I do? New High 65 Oppose Automatic Citizenship for Children Born Here to Illegal Immigrants - Rasmussen Reports trade

I have no idea what your last sentence means.

Neither do I understand you. Very few care about the amendment process, and I also think you should check the polling dynamics of Rasmussen.

But, as I said, begin your educational awareness fight. Good luck.

 

[Flopper]

Let's humor Oldglory for the moment. Perhaps the correct interpretation of the 14th ammendment is that children of illegal immergrants born in the United States are not citizens of the United States. The law is not currently being applied that way and children born to illegal immigrants are being given birth right citizenship. The likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule differently after so many years of the law being enforced this way is practically zero. The only way I know to change this is through constitutional amendment. Arguing that the 14th amendment is being interpreted incorrectly is a moot point.

I personally beleive that much of the federal goverment has exceeded the limits that the founders intended as outlined by the constitution. However, that horse has already left the barn.

It the citizenship clause meant that the children born to illegal immigrants are not citizens, then they will be undocumented, 340,000 a year according to the Pew Research Center. Since most of these children are not the first born in the US, in the unlikely event, that the INS comes calling, there're not going to be deported. However, future American parents would be faced with proving their citizenship. The bottom line is we would have a lot more undocumented immigrants, American citizens without documentation and illegal immigrants claiming to be Americans without documentation.

.

 

[Oldglory1]

One, of course the issue is serious.

Two, you are too serious.

Three, only a few folks feel like you do about anchor babies, most don't care it all.

Four, SCOTUS has given no indication that it would even look at a petition.

Five, you have a serious educational awareness program to get going.

Good luck.

It's never being too serious for us to get serious about this costly problem. Only a few feel as I do? New High 65 Oppose Automatic Citizenship for Children Born Here to Illegal Immigrants - Rasmussen Reports trade

I have no idea what your last sentence means.

Neither do I understand you. Very few care about the amendment process, and I also think you should check the polling dynamics of Rasmussen.

But, as I said, begin your educational awareness fight. Good luck.[/QUO

Rasmussen is a very biab

One, of course the issue is serious.

Two, you are too serious.

Three, only a few folks feel like you do about anchor babies, most don't care it all.

Four, SCOTUS has given no indication that it would even look at a petition.

Five, you have a serious educational awareness program to get going.

Good luck.

It's never being too serious for us to get serious about this costly problem. Only a few feel as I do? New High 65 Oppose Automatic Citizenship for Children Born Here to Illegal Immigrants - Rasmussen Reports trade

I have no idea what your last sentence means.

Neither do I understand you. Very few care about the amendment process, and I also think you should check the polling dynamics of Rasmussen.

But, as I said, begin your educational awareness fight. Good luck.

Just what is it that you don't understand about me? I've made myself very clear. Again, I ask you what do you mean by educational awareness. I've asked twice now.

Why don't you post a poll that is contrary to the Rasmussen one then? You don't like the results so you dismiss them?

 

[Flopper]

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 ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause. Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen." Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.

Yes, I know. I was speaking of the constitution after the court interprets it to mean something different than before the interpretation.

Your point brings up an interesting thought. If the court interpreted the Citizenship clause to mean it would exclude the children of illegal immigrants, the question of birthright citizenship would fall back on congress to define exactly what birthright citizenship means, as to which parent does the child inherit citizenship.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are very aware of what 'educational awareness' means.

If you have the numbers you think you have, then you must educate and mobilize. Study Martin Luther King Jr. on these issues.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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 ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause. Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen." Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.

The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously. SCOTUS understands it all better than you.

 

[Oldglory1]

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 ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause. Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen." Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.

The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously. SCOTUS understands it all better than you.

The SC hasn't bothered to understand it or review it. It is just an assumption.

 

[Oldglory1]

You are very aware of what 'educational awareness' means.

If you have the numbers you think you have, then you must educate and mobilize. Study Martin Luther King Jr. on these issues.

I've already posted the numbers. 65% of Americans don't want children of illegal aliens to gain birthright citizenship. If you have a viable poll that says differently then please post it.

 

[Oldglory1]

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 ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause. Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen." Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.

The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously. SCOTUS understands it all better than you.

The SC hasn't bothered to understand it. The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.

 

[Flopper]

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause. Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen." Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.

The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously. SCOTUS understands it all better than you.

The SC hasn't bothered to understand it or review it. It is just an assumption.

They aren't going to review it until a case before them requires it. SCOTUS doesn't just pick a part of the constitution to review.

 

[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

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."

Just like he says- everyone but foreigners who belong to the families of diplomats:
\
The language is quite clear. Anyone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen.

And the Supreme Court already said that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in Pyler.

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

 

[Syriusly]

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause. Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen." Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.

The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously. SCOTUS understands it all better than you.

The SC hasn't bothered to understand it. The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.

I am fairly confident that the Supreme Court would disagree with you. They have devoted a large part of their life to the law and the Constitution- I may not agree with what Scalia has to say, but I would not impugn him by saying he hasn't bothered to try to understand the Constitution.

 

[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.

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

I am talking to the asshole who can't read the 14th Amendment.

I am talking to the asshole who can't read Supreme Court rulings.

I am talking to the asshole who just reads what he wants to read.



The language is quite clear. Anyone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen.

And the Supreme Court already said that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in Pyler.

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

 

[Syriusly]

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 ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

Parents can be legal resident foreigners. The foreigners in question are illegal alien parents. I said we will have to agree to disagree on the intent of the 14th and move forward to correct the problem but you refuse to do so therefore I'll add you to my ignore list.

I accept your resignation. Thanks for playing.

Yeah- those are stones the size of rice.......

 

[Syriusly]

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 ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

The language does exclude children of illegal aliens. It is just that you and a few others in here refuse to see it.

Yet you have never been able to show how the language would exclude children of illegals.

Nor have you been able to discuss the Supreme Courts decision in Pyler- ruling that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Clearly the language doesn't include children of illegal aliens.

Otherwise you would have been able to explain how it does.