"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[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 ?

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.

You are within the height of STUPIDITY. I AM a Hispanic, you dolt. My grandparents immigrated here from Central America (British Honduras - now called Belize), and I've spoken fluent Spanish desde mil novacientos cinquenta y nueve. (since 1959)

And yes, the amendment DOES make reference to the condition of ones parents > ""[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."
This is understood in the amendment, from the mouth and pen of its author.

 

[protectionist]

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.

It's probably more like 85%. Polls are done by phone, and many of the respondents are illegal aliens themselves, who don't count.

 

[Unkotare]

^^^

 

[protectionist]

^^^

Never mind that. THIS is what you should be paying attention to >> CDZ - Funeral This Weekend For Slain NYPD Ofiicer Wenjian Liu US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Syriusly]

“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.

You are within the height of STUPIDITY. I AM a Hispanic, you dolt. My grandparents immigrated here from Central America (British Honduras - now called Belize), and I've spoken fluent Spanish desde mil novacientos cinquenta y nueve. (since 1959)

And yes, the amendment DOES make reference to the condition of ones parents > ""[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."
This is understood in the amendment, from the mouth and pen of its author.

That is not part of the amendment.

At all.

That is a comment by one person.

here is what the 14th Amendment says about 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.

Nothing about illegal aliens at all

Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Diplomats- and their families.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The problem is there's no 'problem' to correct – the disagreement doesn't concern the 14th Amendment, it concerns the errant proposition that citizen children born in the United States should be unlawfully denied their citizenship merely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status, an undetermined immigration status, as one is not 'illegal' until adjudicated as such in a court of law.

There is no "their citizenship" as you call it, and they are not "citizen children". They are illegal aliens, .

The U.S. government disagrees- which is why citizens born of either legal or illegal aliens are issued U.S. passports.

 

[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.

NONSENSE, and you are a traitor to this country to approve of this massive invasion of our land, after 407,000 US troops sacrificed their lives in World War II, to prevent exactly that.

American troops in WW2 didn't sacrifice any lies to prevent what you called anchor babies.

They didn't even know what illegal aliens were.

 

[Syriusly]

Since when has it only been 'bleeding hearts' that want to follow the language of the Constitution?

It's bleeding hearts that interpret it in ways it was never intended to be interpreted. It's bleeding hearts that want to allow criminal illegals to stay solely because they have child incorrectly granted citizenship because of misapplying the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment.

Lets look at the language of the 14th Amendment once again- shall we?

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.

So tell me how under the 14th Amendment that a child born in the United States is not a citizen?

Lets look at the intent behind the wording by those who wrote it shall we. You can make words say what you want them to say if you twist them enough. Bleeding hearts have taken the term "general welfare" and twisted it into social welfare. Not the same nor was it ever intended to be the same.

Why are you so unwilling to address the actual language of the 14th Amendment?

Here let me help you- the citizenship clause is a very simple sentence:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States,- so thats everyone born in the U.S.- IF THEY ARE

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,- meaning subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

are citizens.

So what part of the 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States, by illegal aliens- are not citizens?

It is just one sentence.

Why are you unwilling to address the intent of those that wrote it?
.

Because as in all things- the language is the law.

Not your interpretation of what the intent behind the law was.

So once again

Why are you so unwilling to address the actual language of the 14th Amendment?

Here let me help you- the citizenship clause is a very simple sentence:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States,- so thats everyone born in the U.S.- IF THEY ARE

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,- meaning subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

are citizens.
So what part of the 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States, by illegal aliens- are not citizens?

And why can none of you tell us that?

 

[Syriusly]

[
These anchor babies are not citizens according to the writers of the 14th no matter what you claim.

What you call 'anchor babies' are citizens according to the 14th Amendment.

No matter what you claim.

 

[Syriusly]

The problem is that the nativists refuse to accept Plyler.

However, SCOTUS does. It has jurisdiction which exceeds Congress on this matter.

So screech and leech. It makes not a difference.

Pyler had nothing to do with illegal aliens.

Since i have quoted Pyler multiple times now- you are now just lying.

(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection 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. Pp. 210-216.


So once again- the Supreme Court has quite firmly stated that illegal aliens are within the jurisidiction of the United States.

Not one of you nativists has been willing to tackle the Supreme Courts decision in Plyler and explain how the children of Illegal aliens cannot be citizens.

 

[Oldglory1]

Still better than the jiggaboos who breed like rabbits just for more stamp food

An unchristian remark by you, and, yes, white women on welfare have children out of wedlock as well.

Still better than the jiggaboos who breed like rabbits just for more stamp food

An unchristian remark by you, and, yes, white women on welfare have children out of wedlock as well.

God is full of hate for many people., mostly those who are different than us

God is full of hate? WTH are you talking about? It's not about the difference in the races/ethnic groups for most Americans. It's about violating our immigration laws and I don't give a damn what they look like! There are millions of legal immigrants/citizens in this country who are "different" from one another. That isn't the objection, race card puller!

 

[ImGoing2Heaven]

Deport them all equally and fairly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

NONSENSE, and you are a traitor to this country to approve of this massive invasion of our land, after 407,000 US troops sacrificed their lives in World War II, to prevent exactly that.

Non sequitur.

 

[JakeStarkey]

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

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.

Protectionist mangled the above: there is no more qualifying language than this.

SCOTUS won't touch it, Congress can't touch it, only an Amendment can change it.

 

[ImGoing2Heaven]

Actually a more lethal fence would solve the problem

 

[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.

NONSENSE, and you are a traitor to this country to approve of this massive invasion of our land, after 407,000 US troops sacrificed their lives in World War II, to prevent exactly that.

Hey Pops, I did not write the 14th amendment...running around calling people "traitors" just goes to prove how disconnected from reality you are. Rant on old dude.

 

[1751_Texan]

Actually a more lethal fence would solve the problem

You can't even pay for the fence there is now and you want a killer fence..??? It's like you're lost in a world all your own.

 

[ImGoing2Heaven]

Make the minorities pay before deporting them back to some middle eastern third world hell hole and cess pit

 

[1751_Texan]

There is no "their citizenship" as you call it, and they are not "citizen children". They are illegal aliens, just like their parents. And their parents simmigratin status of illegal can and is determined within hours of their capture, illegally crossing the Mexican border. It is also the status of criminal of having committed a crime, ranging from misdemeanor to felony, depending on the number of offenses.

How is a child born in the US an Illegal alien. An alien mean he came from some other country...How the hell is a child born on US soil be from some where else? That is laughable.

 

[1751_Texan]

Make the minorities pay before deporting them back to some middle eastern third world hell hole and cess pit

More of your delusions seeping out...