Anchor baby law to be changed.

[OKTexas]

No, Trump can do nothing about birth right law.

It's not a law, it's a court opinion and they're changed all the time.

Not very often and this will not change in the 21st century.

Just your opinion.

 

[OKTexas]

There has been no mistake, there will be no convention, and I invite billy to study the Constitution for the correct procedure of amending the Constitution.

There's not just one procedure.

 

[g5000]

http://www.mintpressnews.com/texas-denies-american-born-children-of-immigrants-citizenship/207600/

Not only Texas but every state should do this.

Texans love the Constitution...when it suits them. Now they are violating it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Dear Kim Davis,

On behalf of all the bigots in Texas, we are inviting you to move to the Lone Star State. We promise that you and your husband will be given a double wide trailer, and cowboy hat and boots for him, and all of the broadcloth you want, with which to make your own dresses. We propose to offer you the job of issuing birth certificates (or not) in our fair state. Please advise, ASAP. The Greyhound leaves your county tomorrow at noon.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Billy, billy, billy. LOL

At the very least there will have to be a scotus decision that would distinguish Wong Ark Kim from children born here to two parents neither of whom have legal status. And, frankly, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.

Try reading the piece I posted.

 

[bendog]

Billy, billy, billy. LOL

At the very least there will have to be a scotus decision that would distinguish Wong Ark Kim from children born here to two parents neither of whom have legal status. And, frankly, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.

Try reading the piece I posted.

The article you posted linked to this
Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?

And that is the point. Wong Kim Ark has been interpreted to stand for birthright citizenship. Regardless of what the federalist blog my wish, the scotus is not going to overturn Kim Ark's holding that a child is a US citizen when born in the US to two non-US citizens, who retain legal status in their native country and evidence an intent (and in their cases the legal duty) to return there. Kim Ark and the 14th never contemplated "illegal immigration," even though the SW border was crossed and recrossed for generations.

Whether, the scotus would hold that a child is a citizen when born to two non-citizens illegally here is a citizen .... maybe that's a question. But you do correctly identify the words at issue "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Billy, billy, billy. LOL

At the very least there will have to be a scotus decision that would distinguish Wong Ark Kim from children born here to two parents neither of whom have legal status. And, frankly, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.

Try reading the piece I posted.

The article you posted linked to this
Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?

And that is the point. Wong Kim Ark has been interpreted to stand for birthright citizenship. Regardless of what the federalist blog my wish, the scotus is not going to overturn Kim Ark's holding that a child is a US citizen when born in the US to two non-US citizens, who retain legal status in their native country and evidence an intent (and in their cases the legal duty) to return there. Kim Ark and the 14th never contemplated "illegal immigration," even though the SW border was crossed and recrossed for generations.

Whether, the scotus would hold that a child is a citizen when born to two non-citizens illegally here is a citizen .... maybe that's a question. But you do correctly identify the words at issue "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.

Any ruling can be reviewed at the Court's discretion. Should they determine that the language of the 14th in dispute has been erroneously or politically interpreted away from the original and intended meaning of the language, there could well be a major shift. Such an act would not be without precedent, and the Court certainly has the authority to reverse previous rulings it deems mistaken.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Billy, billy, billy. LOL

At the very least there will have to be a scotus decision that would distinguish Wong Ark Kim from children born here to two parents neither of whom have legal status. And, frankly, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.

Try reading the piece I posted.

The article you posted linked to this
Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?

And that is the point. Wong Kim Ark has been interpreted to stand for birthright citizenship. Regardless of what the federalist blog my wish, the scotus is not going to overturn Kim Ark's holding that a child is a US citizen when born in the US to two non-US citizens, who retain legal status in their native country and evidence an intent (and in their cases the legal duty) to return there. Kim Ark and the 14th never contemplated "illegal immigration," even though the SW border was crossed and recrossed for generations.

Whether, the scotus would hold that a child is a citizen when born to two non-citizens illegally here is a citizen .... maybe that's a question. But you do correctly identify the words at issue "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.

Any ruling can be reviewed at the Court's discretion. Should they determine that the language of the 14th in dispute has been erroneously or politically interpreted away from the original and intended meaning of the language, there could well be a major shift. Such an act would not be without precedent, and the Court certainly has the authority to reverse previous rulings it deems mistaken.

First, it is not an "act", and second, SCOTUS is already grounded that birth right citizenship is constitutional. That will not change.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Billy, billy, billy. LOL

At the very least there will have to be a scotus decision that would distinguish Wong Ark Kim from children born here to two parents neither of whom have legal status. And, frankly, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.

Try reading the piece I posted.

The article you posted linked to this
Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?

And that is the point. Wong Kim Ark has been interpreted to stand for birthright citizenship. Regardless of what the federalist blog my wish, the scotus is not going to overturn Kim Ark's holding that a child is a US citizen when born in the US to two non-US citizens, who retain legal status in their native country and evidence an intent (and in their cases the legal duty) to return there. Kim Ark and the 14th never contemplated "illegal immigration," even though the SW border was crossed and recrossed for generations.

Whether, the scotus would hold that a child is a citizen when born to two non-citizens illegally here is a citizen .... maybe that's a question. But you do correctly identify the words at issue "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.

Any ruling can be reviewed at the Court's discretion. Should they determine that the language of the 14th in dispute has been erroneously or politically interpreted away from the original and intended meaning of the language, there could well be a major shift. Such an act would not be without precedent, and the Court certainly has the authority to reverse previous rulings it deems mistaken.

First, it is not an "act", and second, SCOTUS is already grounded that birth right citizenship is constitutional. That will not change.

Not an act? What English do you speak?

And yes, it could well change. There is no such thing as settled law, particularly where mistakes have been made.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Billy, billy, billy. LOL

At the very least there will have to be a scotus decision that would distinguish Wong Ark Kim from children born here to two parents neither of whom have legal status. And, frankly, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.

Try reading the piece I posted.

The article you posted linked to this
Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?

And that is the point. Wong Kim Ark has been interpreted to stand for birthright citizenship. Regardless of what the federalist blog my wish, the scotus is not going to overturn Kim Ark's holding that a child is a US citizen when born in the US to two non-US citizens, who retain legal status in their native country and evidence an intent (and in their cases the legal duty) to return there. Kim Ark and the 14th never contemplated "illegal immigration," even though the SW border was crossed and recrossed for generations.

Whether, the scotus would hold that a child is a citizen when born to two non-citizens illegally here is a citizen .... maybe that's a question. But you do correctly identify the words at issue "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.

Any ruling can be reviewed at the Court's discretion. Should they determine that the language of the 14th in dispute has been erroneously or politically interpreted away from the original and intended meaning of the language, there could well be a major shift. Such an act would not be without precedent, and the Court certainly has the authority to reverse previous rulings it deems mistaken.

First, it is not an "act", and second, SCOTUS is already grounded that birth right citizenship is constitutional. That will not change.

Not an act? What English do you speak?

And yes, it could well change. There is no such thing as settled law, particularly where mistakes have been made.

SCOTUS does not pass an act, it opines on law. SCOTUS, theoretically, it rule differently, but the law is not there to do it, in my opinion.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

still trying to find where the constitution says that the mother that plopped the little bean pod out of her taco becomes a citizen.
if she snuck across the border to plop that spawn, then she is not a citizen by rights and she needs to be deported. It then becomes her decision to break up a family or not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

still trying to find where the constitution says that the mother that plopped the little bean pod out of her taco becomes a citizen.
if she snuck across the border to plop that spawn, then she is not a citizen by rights and she needs to be deported. It then becomes her decision to break up a family or not.

The law, right now, disagrees.

 

[Syriusly]

Texas Denies American-Born Children Of Immigrants Citizenship

Not only Texas but every state should do this.

Texas is denying birth certificates- not citizenship.

Just going to cause problems for American citizens.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

still trying to find where the constitution says that the mother that plopped the little bean pod out of her taco becomes a citizen.
if she snuck across the border to plop that spawn, then she is not a citizen by rights and she needs to be deported. It then becomes her decision to break up a family or not.

The law, right now, disagrees.

the law or the constitution

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Texas Denies American-Born Children Of Immigrants Citizenship

Not only Texas but every state should do this.

Texas is denying birth certificates- not citizenship.

Just going to cause problems for American citizens.

how is denying a birth certificate for an illegal going to cause a problem for a citizen.

 

[bendog]

Billy, billy, billy. LOL

At the very least there will have to be a scotus decision that would distinguish Wong Ark Kim from children born here to two parents neither of whom have legal status. And, frankly, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.

Try reading the piece I posted.

The article you posted linked to this
Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?

And that is the point. Wong Kim Ark has been interpreted to stand for birthright citizenship. Regardless of what the federalist blog my wish, the scotus is not going to overturn Kim Ark's holding that a child is a US citizen when born in the US to two non-US citizens, who retain legal status in their native country and evidence an intent (and in their cases the legal duty) to return there. Kim Ark and the 14th never contemplated "illegal immigration," even though the SW border was crossed and recrossed for generations.

Whether, the scotus would hold that a child is a citizen when born to two non-citizens illegally here is a citizen .... maybe that's a question. But you do correctly identify the words at issue "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.

Any ruling can be reviewed at the Court's discretion. Should they determine that the language of the 14th in dispute has been erroneously or politically interpreted away from the original and intended meaning of the language, there could well be a major shift. Such an act would not be without precedent, and the Court certainly has the authority to reverse previous rulings it deems mistaken.

Billy, there has to be a case or controversy. IF Texas actually passed a law saying "no birthright citizenship," then at least conceptually, the scotus might revisit Kim Ark and the application on the 14th. IF some local yahooos in Texas decide not to issue birth certificates, a federal court will have to enjoin them to stop violating the law or go to the hooskow, like Kim Davis did.

The problem would be this.

The 13 said slavery was illegal, and nobody was a slave anymore (with irrelevant exceptions). The 14th just said "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" The US stopped importing slaves in 1807, so every former slave was born here, although they weren't citizens when born because they were slaves.

So, again, you identified the issue: what's it mean in subject to the jurisdiction thereof. We had people who'd been born to non-citizens, who now became citizens cause they were born here subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

In Kim Ark, the guy's parents were never subject to our jurisdiction because the Chinese Exclusion Act(s) said they had to go home ... eventually. Kim Ark was a citizen, because he never gave allegiance to china and was beyond any doubt subject to our penal laws. Perhaps there's some distinction between him an anchor babies, but I wouldn't bet on it.

There are easier ways to dissuade illegal aliens.

 

[Syriusly]

still trying to find where the constitution says that the mother that plopped the little bean pod out of her taco becomes a citizen.
if she snuck across the border to plop that spawn, then she is not a citizen by rights and she needs to be deported. It then becomes her decision to break up a family or not.

I guess you haven't read the 14th Amendment or the Bill of Rights.

 

[Syriusly]

Texas Denies American-Born Children Of Immigrants Citizenship

Not only Texas but every state should do this.

Texas is denying birth certificates- not citizenship.

Just going to cause problems for American citizens.

how is denying a birth certificate for an illegal going to cause a problem for a citizen.

Texas is not denying any birth certificates to illegal aliens- it is denying birth certificates to U.S. citizens.

 

[Syriusly]

Texas can't change the constitution .

Simple.

14th Amendment: why birthright citizenship change 'can't be done'

Texas cannot, but a SCOTUS ruling on the language of the amendment could return is to its original meaning, as did Heller for the 2A.

What 'original meaning' do you imagine?

 

[JakeStarkey]

still trying to find where the constitution says that the mother that plopped the little bean pod out of her taco becomes a citizen.
if she snuck across the border to plop that spawn, then she is not a citizen by rights and she needs to be deported. It then becomes her decision to break up a family or not.

The law, right now, disagrees.

the law or the constitution

You don't understand the Constitution, so it would be useless for me to answer you.