"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Syriusly]

Go home pakies!
Go home wetbacks!
Go home *******!
Jews too!

This guy is just a troll.

I don't put anyone on ignore- but not going to respond anymore to this 13 year olds masturbatory posts.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You left out the part about excluding foreigners, aliens, etc. "and" subject to the jurisdiction which is the qualifier. Neither their parents nor they are under our full jurisdiction . They are under the full jurisdiction of their own country. No one will touch it? That is merely your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.....we've all got one. It wouldn't even take an Amendment to change it because exclusion is already in the amendment. It just needs to be re-interpreted as the writer's intended it to be. Why wouldn't you want it re-interpreted or changed since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and it is costing us billions in tax dollars every year?

According to the Supreme Court they are under the jurisdiction of the United States

• 
  (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.

 

[protectionist]

"[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

He didn't amend anything of Section one. He just wrote it as it is and INTENDED it as he stated >

"[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."

Now stop trying to BS your way out of it.

Yet, we are left with what he actually put in the bill and what Congress and the states approved, "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." During the Senate debate, 3 senators including Senate Judiciary Chairman LymanTrumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats). Congress was well aware that the language in the bill would grant citizenship to these children. If their intention was otherwise they would have narrowed the scope of the citizenship clause which they didn't.

Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which includes Howard's intent. Stop trying to wiggle out of it.

Howard's intent is clearly the language of the 14th Amendment.

“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.”

Why would he use any language other than what he intended to use?

The idea of allowing kids of foreigners to become citizens was thought to be so absurd, that it didn't even require mention. Everyone knew what Howard intended.

 

[protectionist]

They're not citizens, they're fence hoopers

They are, in fact, US citizens. More deserving of that status than you.

Anchor babies are not US citizens and never have been. Jacob Howard carries more weight than you do.

All persons born in the United States are citizen's except the children of diplomats.

They get issued U.S. Passports- they vote- they even get elected.

Your interpretation of Howard's intent is legally irrelevant.

FALSE! It is 100% relevant. And your notion that the children of diplomats should not be citizens, but, at the same time, it's perfectly OK for some fence jumper's kid to be a citizen is laughable.

And I don't state an "interpretation of Howard's intent". There is no "interpretation". His intent is a quote and a historical FACT.

 

[Unkotare]

Another troll ^^^

 

[protectionist]

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.

You left out the part about excluding foreigners, aliens, etc. "and" subject to the jurisdiction which is the qualifier. Neither their parents nor they are under our full jurisdiction . They are under the full jurisdiction of their own country. No one will touch it? That is merely your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.....we've all got one. It wouldn't even take an Amendment to change it because exclusion is already in the amendment. It just needs to be re-interpreted as the writer's intended it to be. Why wouldn't you want it re-interpreted or changed since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and it is costing us billions in tax dollars every year?

According to the Supreme Court they are under the jurisdiction of the United States

• 
  
  
  • 
    (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.

This is against the intent of the founding fathers of the 14th amendment,. and thus belongs in the trash can.

 

[protectionist]

Another troll ^^^

Can't think of anything to say, huh ? Maybe you'd do better in a thread about bubble gum.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

He didn't amend anything of Section one. He just wrote it as it is and INTENDED it as he stated >

"[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."

Now stop trying to BS your way out of it.

Yet, we are left with what he actually put in the bill and what Congress and the states approved, "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." During the Senate debate, 3 senators including Senate Judiciary Chairman LymanTrumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats). Congress was well aware that the language in the bill would grant citizenship to these children. If their intention was otherwise they would have narrowed the scope of the citizenship clause which they didn't.

Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which includes Howard's intent. Stop trying to wiggle out of it.

Howard's intent is clearly the language of the 14th Amendment.

“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.”

Why would he use any language other than what he intended to use?

The idea of allowing kids of foreigners to become citizens was thought to be so absurd, that it didn't even require mention. Everyone knew what Howard intended.

You are babbling and have no way of proving your statement.

 

[Unkotare]

This troll ^^^ belongs in the trash can.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it is not and you can't prove it, protectionist.

I already posted above where you mangled the 14th.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Another troll ^^^

Can't think of anything to say, huh ? Maybe you'd do better in a thread about bubble gum.

You are a troll, no way around it.

 

[protectionist]

He didn't amend anything of Section one. He just wrote it as it is and INTENDED it as he stated >

"[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."

Now stop trying to BS your way out of it.

Yet, we are left with what he actually put in the bill and what Congress and the states approved, "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." During the Senate debate, 3 senators including Senate Judiciary Chairman LymanTrumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats). Congress was well aware that the language in the bill would grant citizenship to these children. If their intention was otherwise they would have narrowed the scope of the citizenship clause which they didn't.

Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which includes Howard's intent. Stop trying to wiggle out of it.

Howard's intent is clearly the language of the 14th Amendment.

“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.”

Why would he use any language other than what he intended to use?

The idea of allowing kids of foreigners to become citizens was thought to be so absurd, that it didn't even require mention. Everyone knew what Howard intended.

You are babbling and have no way of proving your statement.

Are you saying that Howard didn't say these words ? The words don't need proof. The speak for themselves.

 

[protectionist]

Another troll ^^^

Can't think of anything to say, huh ? Maybe you'd do better in a thread about bubble gum.

You are a troll, no way around it.

Yeah, when you can't defeat the message, attack the messenger, right Mr. incompetent poster ? No way around it. And stop stealing my emoticoms. You're the one being laughed at right now.

 

[protectionist]

No, it is not and you can't prove it, protectionist.

I already posted above where you mangled the 14th.

I did nothing to the 14th other than present truth, which you seek to distort.

 

[protectionist]

DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS!!! Which we all know includes anchor babies. This deportation should be retroactive to 1959, when illegal immigration was obliterated from Operation Wetback. The new mass deportation program should be called Operation Wetback II.

 

[Flopper]

That is merely your opinion...

It is the established law of the land, oldgloryhole.

Regarding intent, Justice Scalia had this to say:
"What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended."

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.

You left out the part about excluding foreigners, aliens, etc. "and" subject to the jurisdiction which is the qualifier. Neither their parents nor they are under our full jurisdiction . They are under the full jurisdiction of their own country. No one will touch it? That is merely your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.....we've all got one. It wouldn't even take an Amendment to change it because exclusion is already in the amendment. It just needs to be re-interpreted as the writer's intended it to be. Why wouldn't you want it re-interpreted or changed since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and it is costing us billions in tax dollars every year?

If they aren't under our jurisdiction, then it's all a mute point because they can't be charged with with any crime.

 

[Oldglory1]

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.

They aren't. If their parents are illegal aliens they just entitled to our citizenship by birth. They are citizens of their parent's country. Many countries require that at least one parent be a citizen of their country in order for their newborn to qualify. There are legal aliens and illegal aliens. Learn to know the difference.

Actually there are legal immigrants, undocumented immigrants pending adjudication, and illegal immigrants, who are subject to deportation.

But the parents' immigration status is irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever on the citizenship rights of the newborn American citizen.

No such thing as an "undocumented " immigrant. They are illegal aliens according to immigration law. Just because they haven't been caught and prosecuted yet doesn't change the fact that they are illegal aliens. And no, their kids are not entitled to our birthright citizenship according to the writers of the 14th. Their parent's status is very relevant because of the qualifier of "and' subject to our jurisdiction. They are only subject to obeying our laws simply by being on our soil. Nothing more.

 

[Syriusly]

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

He didn't amend anything of Section one. He just wrote it as it is and INTENDED it as he stated >

"[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."

Now stop trying to BS your way out of it.

Yet, we are left with what he actually put in the bill and what Congress and the states approved, "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." During the Senate debate, 3 senators including Senate Judiciary Chairman LymanTrumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats). Congress was well aware that the language in the bill would grant citizenship to these children. If their intention was otherwise they would have narrowed the scope of the citizenship clause which they didn't.

Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which includes Howard's intent. Stop trying to wiggle out of it.

Howard's intent is clearly the language of the 14th Amendment.

“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.”

Why would he use any language other than what he intended to use?

The idea of allowing kids of foreigners to become citizens was thought to be so absurd, that it didn't even require mention. Everyone knew what Howard intended.

Yet the plain language of the 14th Amendment makes it clear that children of foreigners would become citizens.

It was clear to the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.

And it is clear to the Supreme Court that the children of foreigners are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- as in Plyler v. Doe.

 

[Syriusly]

They're not citizens, they're fence hoopers

They are, in fact, US citizens. More deserving of that status than you.

Anchor babies are not US citizens and never have been. Jacob Howard carries more weight than you do.

All persons born in the United States are citizen's except the children of diplomats.

They get issued U.S. Passports- they vote- they even get elected.

Your interpretation of Howard's intent is legally irrelevant.

FALSE! It is 100% relevant. And your notion that the children of diplomats should not be citizens, but, at the same time, it's perfectly OK for some fence jumper's kid to be a citizen is laughable.

And I don't state an "interpretation of Howard's intent". There is no "interpretation". His intent is a quote and a historical FACT.

Your interpretation and yours alone.

Which is why as I have pointed out that

All persons born in the United States are citizen's except the children of diplomats.

They get issued U.S. Passports- they vote- they even get elected.

Your interpretation of Howard's intent is legally irrelevant

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You left out the part about excluding foreigners, aliens, etc. "and" subject to the jurisdiction which is the qualifier. Neither their parents nor they are under our full jurisdiction . They are under the full jurisdiction of their own country. No one will touch it? That is merely your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.....we've all got one. It wouldn't even take an Amendment to change it because exclusion is already in the amendment. It just needs to be re-interpreted as the writer's intended it to be. Why wouldn't you want it re-interpreted or changed since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and it is costing us billions in tax dollars every year?

According to the Supreme Court they are under the jurisdiction of the United States

• 
  
  
  • 
    (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.

This is against the intent of the founding fathers of the 14th amendment,. and thus belongs in the trash can.

Well I am sure that the Supreme Court will be amused to find that you believe your legal understanding of the 14th Amendment is superior to theirs.

The difference is that their decision is actually legally binding. Yours is just your own babbling.

Everyone born in the jurisdiction of the united States is a citizen- and the Supreme Court has said illegal aliens are within the jurisdiction of the United States.
(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.