Born in the U.S. = American citizen, but not if Trump has his way

[kaz]

....

Illegal aliens are subject to the country they came from, not the United States....

So, if an illegal alien steals a car in the US, it's not a crime? He won't be arrested and prosecuted?

You're equivocating the word "subject"

 

[Unkotare]

....

Illegal aliens are subject to the country they came from, not the United States....

So, if an illegal alien steals a car in the US, it's not a crime? He won't be arrested and prosecuted?

That's correct. .....

No, it's not.

 

[Unkotare]

....

Illegal aliens are subject to the country they came from, not the United States....

So, if an illegal alien steals a car in the US, it's not a crime? He won't be arrested and prosecuted?

You're equivocating the word "subject"

Under US law, is an illegal alien entitled to equal protection like US citizens are?

 

[kaz]

....

Illegal aliens are subject to the country they came from, not the United States....

So, if an illegal alien steals a car in the US, it's not a crime? He won't be arrested and prosecuted?

You're equivocating the word "subject"

Under US law, is an illegal alien entitled to equal protection like US citizens are?

Under US law, yes. Required by the Constitution, no. Your point?

 

[Unkotare]

....

Illegal aliens are subject to the country they came from, not the United States....

So, if an illegal alien steals a car in the US, it's not a crime? He won't be arrested and prosecuted?

You're equivocating the word "subject"

Under US law, is an illegal alien entitled to equal protection like US citizens are?

Under US law, yes. Required by the Constitution, no. Your point?

Required by the Constitution, yes.

So, they are subject to the laws of the United States of America, including the 14th Amendment.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

• "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ..."

No amendment is necessary. A simple ruling on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" will make or break it.

That ruling has already been made and established by the Supremes 118 years ago in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898. Wong was not a subject of the Emperor of China, but subject to the laws of the US and the State in which he resided, California having been born in San Francisco.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark

There are differing opinions, and there is no such thing as "settled law".

Differing opinions just don't get'er done. 118 years of an established precedent could be overturned but extremely unlikely given the scope of the circumstances! I provided the link again below again to the decision to enable you read the portion between page [654] and [658] regarding the basis of the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in common law which is a foundation block of the US Constitution!
United States v. Wong Kim Ark

I am familiar with precedent.

 

[Claudette]

Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?

• 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 state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  
  
• Statelessness
  • The Human Rights of Stateless Persons

It is a silly rule, but it is in the US Constitution.

So it would require a constitutional amendment to change it.

Trump is such an idiot he does not understand that.

You damned right its a silly law. We are the only country in the world that recognizes anyone born in the US as a citizen. How the hell do you think the anchor baby came about??

Amend the damned thing.

 

[Unkotare]

......

It needs to be repealed.

A certain minority of people say that in forums such as this, but they never seem to do anything about it.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?

• 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 state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  
  
• Statelessness
  • The Human Rights of Stateless Persons

It's not so much a policy as it is an acknowledgement of the fact that our inalienable rights manifest as a consequence of our being human, and can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man - including the right to citizenship at birth.

 

[kaz]

....

Illegal aliens are subject to the country they came from, not the United States....

So, if an illegal alien steals a car in the US, it's not a crime? He won't be arrested and prosecuted?

You're equivocating the word "subject"

Under US law, is an illegal alien entitled to equal protection like US citizens are?

Under US law, yes. Required by the Constitution, no. Your point?

Required by the Constitution, yes.

So, they are subject to the laws of the United States of America, including the 14th Amendment.

Where does the Constitution say illegal alien is "entitled to equal protection like US citizens?" Sorry man, not taking your word for it.

And you're still equivocating the word "subject"

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Show me where in the U.S. Constitution birthright citizenship is addressed.

14 Amendment.

Well, there seems to be some question as to whether people born here to foreign nationals are really subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Some argue no, they are not.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?

• 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 state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  
  
• Statelessness
  • The Human Rights of Stateless Persons

No other nation has that policy. It's obviously stupid. Furthermore, not even we do. Illegal aliens aren't "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," Just as Americans are subject to the government of Mexico even if they happen to be in Mexico.

 

[Unkotare]

Show me where in the U.S. Constitution birthright citizenship is addressed.

14 Amendment.

Well, there seems to be some question as to whether people born here to foreign nationals are really subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Some argue no, they are not.

Those some are not on the Supreme Court.

 

[Snouter]

Anchors babies are unconstitutional and the practice needs for the invaders to go to the back of the line with their legal immigration application, plus they need to pay all the medical and transportation bills.

 

[320 Years of History]

Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?

• 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 state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  
  
• Statelessness
  • The Human Rights of Stateless Persons

No other nation has that policy. It's obviously stupid. Furthermore, not even we do. Illegal aliens aren't "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," Just as Americans are subject to the government of Mexico even if they happen to be in Mexico.

Red:
What policy?

Surely you don't mean jus soli?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Show me where in the U.S. Constitution birthright citizenship is addressed.

14 Amendment.

Well, there seems to be some question as to whether people born here to foreign nationals are really subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Some argue no, they are not.

Those who argue that the offspring of foreign nationals born in the United States of America are not subject to US jurisdiction and do not possess birthright citizenship are ignorant of Amendment XIV and the law as establish by SCOTUS 118 years ago in US v. Wong Kim Ark!

 

[pinqy]

Anchors babies are unconstitutional

Please cite which part of the Constitution you're referring to.

and the practice needs for the invaders to go to the back of the line with their legal immigration application,.

Illegal alien parents of citizen children are not allowed in the line at all until the child is 21. Then the child can sponsor his/her parents to legally come here. There is no legal advantage to gaining citizenship by having a child here.

It is a myth that having an anchor baby gives a fast track to citizenship or makes the parent's status in any way legal.

 

[320 Years of History]

Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?

• 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 state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  
  
• Statelessness
  • The Human Rights of Stateless Persons

No other nation has that policy. It's obviously stupid. Furthermore, not even we do. Illegal aliens aren't "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," Just as Americans are subject to the government of Mexico even if they happen to be in Mexico.

Red:
Would you like to clarify just what you mean by the "red" statements? The typo isn't what I'm referring to.

In one sentence you say "jurisdiction" and in the next you say "the government." They aren't the same things. One has to do with being subject to the body of laws in a given country. The other is more akin to being a subject such as "the Queen's subjects."

 

[Tom Horn]

No, it's not.

Crawl out from under your rock and watch the news sometime, loser.

 

[TooTall]

.........hopefully they can start a revolution in mexico, throw out the ruling families and drug cartels and STAY THERE.

This may come as a shock, but not all illegal aliens come from Mexico.

The first thing that should be done is to locate the millions of people who are in the US that have overstayed their Visa and deal with them.