Anchor baby law to be changed.

[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.

Yep, the activist conservatives can make the law up in 5-4 decisions. Funny, how real conservatives opposed activist judges and the new iteration of 21st Century conservatives like it when they like the ruling and piss and moan when they don't.

Correcting a mistake made later in the country's history is not activism.

Corrections are called "Constitutional Amendments"- which is your recourse to what you consider to be an incorrect law.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

It would take a pretty big stretch.

The 14th Amendment is very inclusive

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 the only question is whether a child born to parents who are illegally in the United States is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

The court clearly answered the issue of 'subject to the jurisidction' in Plyler v. Doe- even the dissenting justices acknowledged that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction as specified in the 14th Amendment.

I think it is very unlikely that the court would somehow rationalize that a child born within the United States is somehow subject to the laws of the United States- but not within the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[kiwiman127]

Why is it that the far right are the ones that are always complaining about the Constitution versus the "Commie Left".
I guess we now know who really hates America?

 

[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.

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

Not exactly the intent of the 14th.
Don't think it was meant to allow the disease ridden trash from other countries to sneak across the border to plop their spawn.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Why is it that the far right are the ones that are always complaining about the Constitution versus the "Commie Left".
I guess we now know who really hates America?

I guess you do, The ones that try to make the constitution cover every anti American issue are the ones that hate it.
Like, granting citizenship to some ho because she waited till she was just ready to crap a baby out then snuck over the border to do so.

 

[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.

It would take a pretty big stretch.

The 14th Amendment is very inclusive

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 the only question is whether a child born to parents who are illegally in the United States is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

The court clearly answered the issue of 'subject to the jurisidction' in Plyler v. Doe- even the dissenting justices acknowledged that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction as specified in the 14th Amendment.

I think it is very unlikely that the court would somehow rationalize that a child born within the United States is somehow subject to the laws of the United States- but not within the jurisdiction of the United States.

I don't think there's much doubt that it's the minority view that a child born here is not a citizen, by virtue of being subject to the laws, because the parents were violating the laws by being here. The reality is the parents are very much subject to our laws. We can deport em. We can jail them for any crimes they commit here. We can make em pay taxes.

But what's interesting is the concepts of whether citizenship passes by virtue of where one is born, or to where the parents own their loyalty. Obama, despite the birther's wishes, was born in Hawaii to an American mom. End of story. (Now he may at heart be a muslim Kenyan Marxist socialist, but despite his not viewing America like us, he's an American. grrrrrr) But, what of Ted Cruz? US law says, he's in. So, really in saying Ted may not be a citizen, the Big Quack is flip flopping. LOL

 

[bendog]

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.

Not exactly the intent of the 14th.
Don't think it was meant to allow the disease ridden trash from other countries to sneak across the border to plop their spawn.

Well, the late 19th century white south would probably argue ... "we told you damn Yankees so."

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

It would take a pretty big stretch.

The 14th Amendment is very inclusive

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 the only question is whether a child born to parents who are illegally in the United States is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

The court clearly answered the issue of 'subject to the jurisidction' in Plyler v. Doe- even the dissenting justices acknowledged that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction as specified in the 14th Amendment.

I think it is very unlikely that the court would somehow rationalize that a child born within the United States is somehow subject to the laws of the United States- but not within the jurisdiction of the United States.

It also does not include the mother becoming a citizen the second the spawn is hatched.
So the choices the mother must face is, does she bring the spawn back to wherever she came from, or, does she leave it here in the care of social services to be adopted. If she takes it back it would be rightfully allowed to come back to the states when it turned 18.

 

[Unkotare]

...
Don't think it was meant to allow the disease ridden trash from other countries to sneak across the border to plop their spawn.

We let disease-ridden trash like you plop here and stay. Let's get an amendment going to jettison filth like you before worrying about anything else.

 

[SwimExpert]

Why God, why? Why the fuck do you make so many god damned stupid people!?!

Fixing the anchor baby loophole requires a constitutional amendment. It would 100% be a good and useful amendment. But the will take an amendment.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

It would take a pretty big stretch.

The 14th Amendment is very inclusive

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 the only question is whether a child born to parents who are illegally in the United States is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

The court clearly answered the issue of 'subject to the jurisidction' in Plyler v. Doe- even the dissenting justices acknowledged that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction as specified in the 14th Amendment.

I think it is very unlikely that the court would somehow rationalize that a child born within the United States is somehow subject to the laws of the United States- but not within the jurisdiction of the United States.

I don't think there's much doubt that it's the minority view that a child born here is not a citizen, by virtue of being subject to the laws, because the parents were violating the laws by being here. The reality is the parents are very much subject to our laws. We can deport em. We can jail them for any crimes they commit here. We can make em pay taxes.

But what's interesting is the concepts of whether citizenship passes by virtue of where one is born, or to where the parents own their loyalty. Obama, despite the birther's wishes, was born in Hawaii to an American mom. End of story. (Now he may at heart be a muslim Kenyan Marxist socialist, but despite his not viewing America like us, he's an American. grrrrrr) But, what of Ted Cruz? US law says, he's in. So, really in saying Ted may not be a citizen, the Big Quack is flip flopping. LOL

lets not be so fast on giving Cruz the benefit of doubt. He deserves from the left the same treatment the non citizen obama gets from the right

 

[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.

It would take a pretty big stretch.

The 14th Amendment is very inclusive

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 the only question is whether a child born to parents who are illegally in the United States is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

The court clearly answered the issue of 'subject to the jurisidction' in Plyler v. Doe- even the dissenting justices acknowledged that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction as specified in the 14th Amendment.

I think it is very unlikely that the court would somehow rationalize that a child born within the United States is somehow subject to the laws of the United States- but not within the jurisdiction of the United States.

It also does not include the mother becoming a citizen the second the spawn is hatched.
So the choices the mother must face is, does she bring the spawn back to wherever she came from, or, does she leave it here in the care of social services to be adopted. If she takes it back it would be rightfully allowed to come back to the states when it turned 18.

Ah, but recall that in Wong Ark the parents were not citizens, and beyond any doubt legally prohibited from ever becoming citizens. So, it's really difficult to see how Billy's interpretation of "born subject to the laws" can fly. The only difference between Wong Ark and anchor babies is that Wong Ark's parents were legally here. But the words are "born subject to the laws ...." There's no factual dispute that children of illegal aliens are subject to US law .. and not Mexico's law ... at least while they're in the US.

So, the basic issue comes down to this. In Wong Ark, the majority came down on the side of saying the US followed British common law, and the 14th merely codified the law of making a citizen of anyone born here. The dissent would have found the deciding issue was not where the kid was born, but rather to what country the parent owed allegiance to. So, it'd take about ten years to even get this issue near the scotus, and then you'd be hanging your hat on them going against a decision that had six justices on the winning side.

It'd be a lot easier to just make it harder for illegal aliens to get jobs and housing, and ramp up penalties for fining them and their employers.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

...
Don't think it was meant to allow the disease ridden trash from other countries to sneak across the border to plop their spawn.

We let disease-ridden trash like you plop here and stay. Let's get an amendment going to jettison filth like you before worrying about anything else.

The constitution gives you the right to petition for that.
Don't end up an old man wishing you would have done what you didn't.

 

[Unkotare]

...
Don't think it was meant to allow the disease ridden trash from other countries to sneak across the border to plop their spawn.

We let disease-ridden trash like you plop here and stay. Let's get an amendment going to jettison filth like you before worrying about anything else.

The constitution gives you the right to petition for that.
Don't end up an old man wishing you would have done what you didn't.

No one told you to speak, filthy spawn.

 

[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.

Not exactly the intent of the 14th.
Don't think it was meant to allow the disease ridden trash from other countries to sneak across the border to plop their spawn.

The intent of the 14th Amendment is pretty clear from the wording- it is your problem if you don't like what the 14th Amendment says

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.

Don't like the Constitution? Then change it.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Not exactly the intent of the 14th.
Don't think it was meant to allow the disease ridden trash from other countries to sneak across the border to plop their spawn.

The intent of the 14th Amendment is pretty clear from the wording- it is your problem if you don't like what the 14th Amendment says

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.

Don't like the Constitution? Then change it.

The intent was based on the thinking of those that wrote it. You can't determine their intent based on what you think it is.

What do you do with the illegal parents of those incorrectly granted citizenship as a direct result of a crime? Do they get to stay? Does what you consider the intent of the 14th allow them to stay?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

It would take a pretty big stretch.

The 14th Amendment is very inclusive

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 the only question is whether a child born to parents who are illegally in the United States is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

The court clearly answered the issue of 'subject to the jurisidction' in Plyler v. Doe- even the dissenting justices acknowledged that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction as specified in the 14th Amendment.

I think it is very unlikely that the court would somehow rationalize that a child born within the United States is somehow subject to the laws of the United States- but not within the jurisdiction of the United States.

It also does not include the mother becoming a citizen the second the spawn is hatched.
So the choices the mother must face is, does she bring the spawn back to wherever she came from, or, does she leave it here in the care of social services to be adopted. If she takes it back it would be rightfully allowed to come back to the states when it turned 18.

Such a 'patriot'.......calling an American citizen 'spawn'.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

Not exactly the intent of the 14th.
Don't think it was meant to allow the disease ridden trash from other countries to sneak across the border to plop their spawn.

The intent of the 14th Amendment is pretty clear from the wording- it is your problem if you don't like what the 14th Amendment says

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.

Don't like the Constitution? Then change it.

The intent was based on the thinking of those that wrote it. You can't determine their intent based on what you think it is.

and yet we can determine their intent when it comes to voting laws, gun rights, welfare etc...
Just not illegals. Do I have this pretty much correct here?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

It would take a pretty big stretch.

The 14th Amendment is very inclusive

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 the only question is whether a child born to parents who are illegally in the United States is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

The court clearly answered the issue of 'subject to the jurisidction' in Plyler v. Doe- even the dissenting justices acknowledged that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction as specified in the 14th Amendment.

I think it is very unlikely that the court would somehow rationalize that a child born within the United States is somehow subject to the laws of the United States- but not within the jurisdiction of the United States.

It also does not include the mother becoming a citizen the second the spawn is hatched.
So the choices the mother must face is, does she bring the spawn back to wherever she came from, or, does she leave it here in the care of social services to be adopted. If she takes it back it would be rightfully allowed to come back to the states when it turned 18.

Such a 'patriot'.......calling an American citizen 'spawn'.

We are not talking about citizens, we are talking about illegals.
See, that's the problem today, the left is mostly made up of illegals so they just don't understand how much damage they do.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

It would take a pretty big stretch.

The 14th Amendment is very inclusive

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 the only question is whether a child born to parents who are illegally in the United States is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

The court clearly answered the issue of 'subject to the jurisidction' in Plyler v. Doe- even the dissenting justices acknowledged that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction as specified in the 14th Amendment.

I think it is very unlikely that the court would somehow rationalize that a child born within the United States is somehow subject to the laws of the United States- but not within the jurisdiction of the United States.

It also does not include the mother becoming a citizen the second the spawn is hatched.
So the choices the mother must face is, does she bring the spawn back to wherever she came from, or, does she leave it here in the care of social services to be adopted. If she takes it back it would be rightfully allowed to come back to the states when it turned 18.

Such a 'patriot'.......calling an American citizen 'spawn'.

We are not talking about citizens, we are talking about illegals.....

Too stupid to read your own posts, filthy spawn?