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

[JimBowie1958]

I somehow managed to pass by the idiot who doesn't know the constitution and the 14th amendment. I was shocked that the idiot didn't know the 14th amendment and what it says. Thankfully others on the thread told the idiot.

Now I come to your incredibly and embarrassingly stupid post.

For your information there are 30 nations in this world that give citizenship by birth.

This is off topic for the thread, but I have to say this because it's a behavior, a phenomenon or trend, that sadly I see in the comments on USMB, and not just once or twice, but in droves.

You have hit squarely on the head one of the easiest ways to know just what kind of person you are dealing with from the instant they make the first remark. This is how you know you have found yourself in a discussion with someone (1) don't know what the hell they are talking about and (2) doesn't actually give a damn whether they do or not.

But how can one know that for this particular thread? For two points of data:

• The 14th Amendments immigration section, Section 1 of that amendment, is quoted in the OP.
• The very first linked supplemental content is the OP takes one to an article that says, "30 countries of the world's 194 have a policy of birthright citizenship."

The instant you see inaccurate remarks about those two things, you know it's only about what they think and what they want to believe, in spite of the fact there's no reason to believe it. Individuals like that neither confirmed their own beliefs nor read the content provided and laid at their feet to facilitate their participation in a mature and honest discussion.

The instant you see someone making remarks are just not factually accurate, and for which there's no reason at all for them to have done so because the information they needed in order not to do so is made available right there in the post to which they respond, you know you are dealing with someone who neither displays the barest bit of respect for their readers, nor shows any intellectual or discursive integrity and thus respect for themselves. And that's the saddest thing about it. And those are the people who blame everything they think is wrong in the world and in their lives on someone else, usually their political adversary (person or party).

but none of that changes the simple fact that Birthright citizenship is merely case law and PRESUMPTION by the legal elites and can be changed with a simple law followed up by court challenges, then an amendment if necessary.

 

[320 Years of History]

I somehow managed to pass by the idiot who doesn't know the constitution and the 14th amendment. I was shocked that the idiot didn't know the 14th amendment and what it says. Thankfully others on the thread told the idiot.

Now I come to your incredibly and embarrassingly stupid post.

For your information there are 30 nations in this world that give citizenship by birth.

This is off topic for the thread, but I have to say this because it's a behavior, a phenomenon or trend, that sadly I see in the comments on USMB, and not just once or twice, but in droves.

You have hit squarely on the head one of the easiest ways to know just what kind of person you are dealing with from the instant they make the first remark. This is how you know you have found yourself in a discussion with someone (1) don't know what the hell they are talking about and (2) doesn't actually give a damn whether they do or not.

But how can one know that for this particular thread? For two points of data:

• The 14th Amendments immigration section, Section 1 of that amendment, is quoted in the OP.
• The very first linked supplemental content is the OP takes one to an article that says, "30 countries of the world's 194 have a policy of birthright citizenship."

The instant you see inaccurate remarks about those two things, you know it's only about what they think and what they want to believe, in spite of the fact there's no reason to believe it. Individuals like that neither confirmed their own beliefs nor read the content provided and laid at their feet to facilitate their participation in a mature and honest discussion.

The instant you see someone making remarks are just not factually accurate, and for which there's no reason at all for them to have done so because the information they needed in order not to do so is made available right there in the post to which they respond, you know you are dealing with someone who neither displays the barest bit of respect for their readers, nor shows any intellectual or discursive integrity and thus respect for themselves. And that's the saddest thing about it. And those are the people who blame everything they think is wrong in the world and in their lives on someone else, usually their political adversary (person or party).

but none of that changes the simple fact that Birthright citizenship is merely case law and PRESUMPTION by the legal elites and can be changed with a simple law followed up by court challenges, then an amendment if necessary.

True enough. All that changes is with whom one will engage in a discussion. It is, for me, always about one thing before everything else and that thing is not who's right, not who knows more or less, not who agrees with me or doesn't, or anything else, except integrity. People, groups, of any set of beliefs and possessed of high degrees of integrity, no matter how much they differ at the start, can always find an implementable and effective solution to every problem for which there is a solution. That's why I have said that I only care if a candidate has integrity, and if neither does, I'll go with the one who has more of it than the other, for that person will ultimately more often do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do.

• Integrity lets one admit one's own mistakes and learn from them.
• Integrity allows one to forgive others their mistakes s and help them not repeat them.

That's really all we need in our elected officials. Everything else will take care of itself in due course if they players making the decisions have that one character trait: integrity.

 

[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

If the parents sneak in illegally to give birth, the child should be considered a citizen of their home country.

I don't really have a problem with altering U.S. citizenship standards so it works that way, but that's not the way the way U.S. law/policy is applied currently. I do have a problem with revising our policies doing so as you've suggested will force people to be stateless. That's why I linked the content about statelessness.

 

[ninja007]

good- the only reason libs care is they'll lose millions of votes and will never win another election.

 

[Clementine]

I don't really have a problem with altering U.S. citizenship standards so it works that way, but that's not the way the way U.S. law/policy is applied currently. I do have a problem with revising our policies doing so as you've suggested will force people to be stateless. That's why I linked the content about statelessness.

It's Mexico and others that need to change. The illegal aliens come here to give birth so they can collect welfare for their children and so they can grow up here. Then it would be mean to separate families since Mexico not only doesn't want it's own citizens back, but they don't want the children born here.

This whole thing is out of control. Mexico uses their poor by encouraging them to come here and then send back billions in remittances to help them out. And Mexico does nothing for it's poor citizens.

So, it's not our fault that millions decided to enter illegally and have children here, knowing that they would rightfully be deported if we follow our current laws.

You bring up current laws regarding birthright, but current immigration laws do not allow people to sneak in the country and live here without going through the legal process. It's the people putting themselves in this position and most other countries would never allow it.

The left wants to change it so anyone can come and not worry about deportation. I think we should uphold immigration laws and clarify the law regarding birthright citizenship. If the parents have no business being here, their children should not be given citizenship. We need to change things because this will soon be so out of hand that borders will be non-existent.

 

[Conservative65]

So the Supreme Court read INTO the Constitution something that those writing the amendment never intended to be done? Got it.

No! What you got is bullshit impersonating reasoning skills and knowledge!

It is a living document. That's proven by the founders putting in a formal method to change it. Saying you think it means something those that actually wrote portions in it you don't like doesn't fit that concept. That's the bullshit argument used by those that want the judicial branch to act like the legislative branch and that damn sure wasn't what the founders intended.

The Constitution has nothing in common with any sort of organism, living or dead. It is a Social Contract which can be amended via Article V or through the checks and balance mechanisms incorporated within by those Brilliant Framers of the Great Contract! You're ignorance is showing below you skirt, precious!

What I did is make you look like a fool as if you don't do that by yourself easily.

In other words, like I said, read INTO it.

Lot of mouth for a moron.

How could you...I piggybacked your post to another, and made you out as the ignorant fool your post to another displayed!! Nice dodge though, given you were unable to respond to the substance I presented! Another fool that's all smoke and no fucking fire!

Another idiot that can't even get the smoke to show. Impotent.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't really have a problem with altering U.S. citizenship standards so it works that way, but that's not the way the way U.S. law/policy is applied currently. I do have a problem with revising our policies doing so as you've suggested will force people to be stateless. That's why I linked the content about statelessness.

It's Mexico and others that need to change. The illegal aliens come here to give birth so they can collect welfare for their children and so they can grow up here. Then it would be mean to separate families since Mexico not only doesn't want it's own citizens back, but they don't want the children born here.

This whole thing is out of control. Mexico uses their poor by encouraging them to come here and then send back billions in remittances to help them out. And Mexico does nothing for it's poor citizens.

So, it's not our fault that millions decided to enter illegally and have children here, knowing that they would rightfully be deported if we follow our current laws.

You bring up current laws regarding birthright, but current immigration laws do not allow people to sneak in the country and live here without going through the legal process. It's the people putting themselves in this position and most other countries would never allow it.

The left wants to change it so anyone can come and not worry about deportation. I think we should uphold immigration laws and clarify the law regarding birthright citizenship. If the parents have no business being here, their children should not be given citizenship. We need to change things because this will soon be so out of hand that borders will be non-existent.

Red:
Facts and sources, please. Where is the documentation from the Mexican government that supports your conclusions/claims? Please show it to me for I've not seen it. What I have seen is this:

​

And I've seen the examination into the factual merit of the claims in that 2010 video. I've also read this New York Times article. The rest of what I've seen is various writers, as you have above, opining about what Mexico is and isn't doing and what Mexico's intent is, yet providing no clear evidence that anyone can review on their own to determine whether they agree with those opinions.

As goes Mexican illegal immigrants, there were 5.6 million Mexican unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2014, down from 6.4 million in 2009, according to preliminary Pew Research Center estimates.


Here is the "Guide for the Mexican Migrant" (a 2005 publication) that, as far as I can tell, forms the basis for the opinions and claims conservatives make similar to your "red" ones.

• There is no information on where to cross the border or how to avoid the Border Patrol or U.S. authorities when doing so.
• Two illustrations appear to show migrants in flight from law officers; however, the text does not contain information on how to avoid law enforcement while crossing over. Moreover, it advises people to cooperate if they encounter the border patrol.
  
• The document begins as follows:
  • The purpose of this guide is to provide you with practical advice that may prove useful to you in case you have made the difficult decision to search for employment opportunities outside of your country. The sure way to enter another country is by getting your passport from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the visa, which you may apply for at the embassy or consulate of the country you wish to travel to.
    
    Reading this guide will make you aware of some basic questions about the legal consequences of your stay in the United States of America without the appropriate migratory documents, as well as about the rights you have in that country, once you are there, independent of your migratory status.However, in practice we see many Mexicans who try to cross the Northern Border without the necessary documents, through high risk zones that involve grave dangers, particularly in desert areas or rivers with strong, and not always obvious, currents.
    
    Keep in mind always that there exist legal mechanisms to enter the United States of America legally.
• It continues later saying:
  • DO NOT USE FALSE DOCUMENTS DO NOT USE FALSE DOCUMENTS OR THOSE THAT DO NOT BELONG TO YOU, NOR DECLARE A FALSE NATIONALITY.
    
    If you try crossing with false documents or another person's documents, be aware that using false documents or another person's is a federal crime in the United States, for which you can be criminally tried and jailed; likewise if you use a false name or claim to be a citizen of the United States when you are not one. Do not lie to American government officials whom you encounter.
• The rest of the document discusses
  • the health dangers associated with traveling in a desert
    • DANGERS IN CROSSING HIGH RISK ZONES
      Crossing the river can be very risky, most especially if you cross alone and at night.
      If you are going to walk through the desert, avoid doing so at the hottest times of day. Highways and population centers are far apart, so you will spend several days looking for roads, and you will not be able to carry enough food or water for long periods of time. Also, you can get lost.
  • the danger of becoming involved with "coyotes, polleros" (human traffickers) and advises against interacting with them
    • "They will try to entice you with assurances of crossing in a few hours through the mountains and deserts. Don't believe them! They will put your life at risk by taking you across rivers, drainage canals, desert areas, train tracks, or highways. Many people have died this way."
  • what rights one has in the event one is arrested or detained by American law enforcement/immigration officials.
• There's no encouragement to send money back to the Mexican government or to people in Mexico.
• There's nothing encouraging people to leave Mexico in the first place.

My Conclusions with regard to the evidence I could find that might potentially support your claims above:

• If that "GuÍa" document is your idea of a document informing people on how to succeed at illegally immigrating to the U.S., it's a very lame effort. I damn sure wouldn't rely on that document as a primary source of advice for how to do so. I mean really. Were "encouragement and informing" the intent, among the things that would be paramount to inform folks about were that the intent is how to evade Border Patrol.
• The Mexican government hardly wants people literally dying as they try to get into the U.S., and Mexico surely knows that some of its citizens will try to enter the U.S. via a desert crossing regardless of whether it advises against doing so. It makes sense that at the very least, and for those people' own good, that the Mexican government publish a document that identifies the hazards of trying to cross the desert in an effort to dissuade them from doing so, which is the tone the document takes. The U.S. government would do the same if it knew it had citizens hiking through the desert regardless of why they are doing so.
  
  The U.S. government knows that folks will undertake similarly dangerous treks. It produces some basic information about the safety risks of doing so. That's what democracies (their governments) do; they try to look out for the safety of their citizens no matter what risky pursuit they may try to undertake. That's not an encouragement to engage in a given activity. It's saying "if you're gonna do it, at least be safe about it."

Blue:
??? Can you be considerably more coherent in clarifying, please, whatever idea that paragraph is trying to convey? By definition, no country allows illegal immigration, not even the U.S.

If you want to make a point about folks who come illegally to the U.S., fine. If you want to discuss folks who are born in the U.S. to people who are here illegally, fine. If you want to address folks who travel here legally and give birth while here legally, fine. I'm okay with discussing any of those classes of immigrants/visitors, but I'm not okay with conflating them. I won't do it and I won't engage in a conversation with someone who does that.

If you are trying to assert that no other country allows birthright citizenship, you and I can just stop having a conversation because you're flat out wrong about that and you made no effort to find out whether you were right or wrong before writing the final sentence of the "blue" paragraph. I'm sorry, but I'm at the point now where I have zero tolerance or will for discourse with folks who blatantly verify their own beliefs/ideas and arguments for accuracy, validity and soundness. Loud, strong and wrong just doesn't cut it.


Green:
Here again, documentation please, that is, unless you aver to being a spokesperson for "the left." Either you have clear statements to that effect or you have a strong (valid and sound) argument to that effect. I'm okay with either, but I want to see one or the other.

 

[Correll]

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

What part are you not understanding?

Babies born to foreign parents are citizens of their parents nations, not America.

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. All this arguing does not change in any way the FACT that many babies were born in many parts of the US to many kinds of parents today and EVERY one of them is a US citizen; every bit as much and every bit as legitimately and fully a true and legal US citizen as anyone posting on this thread. A true, legal, indisputable FACT.

If some people think the Constitution should be amended, get to work trying to see it happen; but all the typing, harping, hating, and disrespecting that may be posted here won't change a thing.

.

That is the current interpretation of the Law, by the Supreme Court.

I think it is a flawed, even stupid ruling that should be reversed.

 

[Correll]

..... Give the anchor babies the boot right along with their parents. If they want to come back, get in line like the rest of the world does.

You can't "give the boot" to US citizens, and we are NOT going to.

Anchor babies are counterfeit citizens and yes we ARE going to now while we have the chance...when there are another 20 million it will be impossible.

No they are not....you really hate the U.S. Constitution, don't you?

If an American couple vacationing in Canada has a baby, is the baby an American?

Yes.
...t.

I agree. The CHIld is an American because it's parents are American.

Birthright by Jus Soli is bad policy and NOT what the writers of the 14th Amendment had in mind.

 

[Unkotare]

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

What part are you not understanding?

Babies born to foreign parents are citizens of their parents nations, not America.

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. All this arguing does not change in any way the FACT that many babies were born in many parts of the US to many kinds of parents today and EVERY one of them is a US citizen; every bit as much and every bit as legitimately and fully a true and legal US citizen as anyone posting on this thread. A true, legal, indisputable FACT.

If some people think the Constitution should be amended, get to work trying to see it happen; but all the typing, harping, hating, and disrespecting that may be posted here won't change a thing.

.

That is the current interpretation of the Law, by the Supreme Court.

I think it is a flawed, even stupid ruling that should be reversed.

And your opinion changes reality 0.00%.

 

[Correll]

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

What part are you not understanding?

Babies born to foreign parents are citizens of their parents nations, not America.

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. All this arguing does not change in any way the FACT that many babies were born in many parts of the US to many kinds of parents today and EVERY one of them is a US citizen; every bit as much and every bit as legitimately and fully a true and legal US citizen as anyone posting on this thread. A true, legal, indisputable FACT.

If some people think the Constitution should be amended, get to work trying to see it happen; but all the typing, harping, hating, and disrespecting that may be posted here won't change a thing.

.

That is the current interpretation of the Law, by the Supreme Court.

I think it is a flawed, even stupid ruling that should be reversed.

And your opinion changes reality 0.00%.

I never claimed otherwise.

Now if Trump is elected because of my OPINION combined with the OPINION of a majority of voters, then my opinion might end up changing reality.


Again, it's red, white and boo


"It was imperfectly odd. It was strangely unsettling. It was uniquely American.

On a balmy early Saturday summer evening, the U.S soccer team played for a prestigious championship in a U.S. stadium ... and was smothered in boos.

Its fans were vastly outnumbered. Its goalkeeper was bathed in a chanted obscenity. Even its national anthem was filled with the blowing of air horns and bouncing of beach balls.

Most of these hostile visitors didn't live in another country. Most, in fact, were not visitors at all, many of them being U.S. residents whose lives are here but whose sporting souls remain elsewhere."


"
"Obviously ... the support that Mexico has on the night like tonight makes it a home game for them," said U.S. Coach Bob Bradley, choosing his words carefully. "It's part of something we have to deal with on the night."

It wasn't just something. It was everything. I've never heard more consistent loud cheering for one team here, from the air horns to the " Ole" chants with each Mexico pass, all set to the soundtrack of a low throbbing roar that began in the parking lot about six hours before the game and continued long into the night.

Even when the U.S. scored the first two goals, the Mexico cheers stayed strong, perhaps inspiring El Tri to four consecutive goals against a U.S. team that seemed dazed and confused. Then when it ended, and the Mexican players had danced across the center of the field in giddy wonder while the U.S. players had staggered to the sidelines in disillusionment, the madness continued.

Because nobody left. Rather amazingly, the Mexico fans kept bouncing and cheering under headbands and sombreros, nobody moving an inch, the giant Rose Bowl jammed for a postgame trophy ceremony for perhaps the first time in its history.

And, yes, when the U.S. team was announced one final time, it was once again booed.

"We're not booing the country, we're booing the team," Sanchez said. "There is a big difference.""




Bullshit Sanchez, your heart is MEXICAN, only your paperwork is American.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I somehow managed to pass by the idiot who doesn't know the constitution and the 14th amendment. I was shocked that the idiot didn't know the 14th amendment and what it says. Thankfully others on the thread told the idiot.

Now I come to your incredibly and embarrassingly stupid post.

For your information there are 30 nations in this world that give citizenship by birth.

This is off topic for the thread, but I have to say this because it's a behavior, a phenomenon or trend, that sadly I see in the comments on USMB, and not just once or twice, but in droves.

You have hit squarely on the head one of the easiest ways to know just what kind of person you are dealing with from the instant they make the first remark. This is how you know you have found yourself in a discussion with someone (1) don't know what the hell they are talking about and (2) doesn't actually give a damn whether they do or not.

But how can one know that for this particular thread? For two points of data:

• The 14th Amendments immigration section, Section 1 of that amendment, is quoted in the OP.
• The very first linked supplemental content is the OP takes one to an article that says, "30 countries of the world's 194 have a policy of birthright citizenship."

The instant you see inaccurate remarks about those two things, you know it's only about what they think and what they want to believe, in spite of the fact there's no reason to believe it. Individuals like that neither confirmed their own beliefs nor read the content provided and laid at their feet to facilitate their participation in a mature and honest discussion.

The instant you see someone making remarks are just not factually accurate, and for which there's no reason at all for them to have done so because the information they needed in order not to do so is made available right there in the post to which they respond, you know you are dealing with someone who neither displays the barest bit of respect for their readers, nor shows any intellectual or discursive integrity and thus respect for themselves. And that's the saddest thing about it. And those are the people who blame everything they think is wrong in the world and in their lives on someone else, usually their political adversary (person or party).

but none of that changes the simple fact that Birthright citizenship is merely case law and PRESUMPTION by the legal elites and can be changed with a simple law followed up by court challenges, then an amendment if necessary.

True enough. All that changes is with whom one will engage in a discussion. It is, for me, always about one thing before everything else and that thing is not who's right, not who knows more or less, not who agrees with me or doesn't, or anything else, except integrity. People, groups, of any set of beliefs and possessed of high degrees of integrity, no matter how much they differ at the start, can always find an implementable and effective solution to every problem for which there is a solution. That's why I have said that I only care if a candidate has integrity, and if neither does, I'll go with the one who has more of it than the other, for that person will ultimately more often do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do.

• Integrity lets one admit one's own mistakes and learn from them.
• Integrity allows one to forgive others their mistakes s and help them not repeat them.

That's really all we need in our elected officials. Everything else will take care of itself in due course if they players making the decisions have that one character trait: integrity.

An excellent point you make, 320, a very solid and germane point.

It is better to be wrong, and I am not joking, but having arrived at that wrong conclusion by a valid set of principles and values than to be right due to circumstances.

The first case will improve itself while the latter is unlikely to repeat.

But in the broader picture, as a nation, as a community of Americans, we have to learn to be honest with each other again and to value the contribution of all of us who are being as honest as we can be and who have integrity. Part of that of valuing the integrity of those we disagree with is to take their meaning of what they say from THEM and not their detractors. That is equally crucial to having the integrity to carry on productive dialogue, is it not?

 

[320 Years of History]

An excellent point you make, 320, a very solid and germane point.

Thank you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That is the current interpretation of the Law, by the Supreme Court.

I think it is a flawed, even stupid ruling that should be reversed.

That is not the ruling of the SCOTUS.

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.
1. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “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.”

2. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:

• Is born in the United States
• Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power
• Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States
• Has parents that are in the United States for business

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[8] but it has generally been assumed that they are.[9]
As of 2015, the “United States” includes all inhabited territories except American Samoa and Swain Island
United States nationality law

These conditions are all inclusive, that is each one must be met and failure to meet one of them disqualifies one for citizenship by birth, at least according to Constitutional case law.
The disqualifier that a persons parents cannot be a diplomat or official of a foreign government is not so well known, and our State Department under Obama is obscuring this restriction. http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship-diplomats

What the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means exactly is what was addressed in Wong Kim Ark. The concluding section of that decision states:

"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile AND residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

169 US 649 United States v. Wong Kim Ark | OpenJurist

But what is the meaning of "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States"?
"Domicile is but the established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling-place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him.

Law Dictionary: What is DOMICILE? definition of DOMICILE (Black's Law Dictionary) What is DOMICILE? definition of DOMICILE (Black's Law Dictionary)

Just because one resides in the USA does not mean that one has DOMICILE in the USA, and to have birthright citizenship, according to Wong, one must have BOTH legal Domicile and residence. Illegal aliens do not have legal Domicile in the USA, so one can challenge their birthright citizenship but all states today give them citizenship anyway. That can change by a simple change of law at the state level.

And SCOTUS also recognized in Wong Kim Ark that not all persons born in the United States are citizens immmediately and it gives a list of some of those cases in Section 93.
"93....The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory..."

But does "domiciled within the United States" mean to simply live here, legally or illegally (ignoring the legal definition of domiciled for a moment)?
That is addressed in Section 96:
"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. "

An alien is not considered to have legal domicile in the United States if they are not here with the permission of the United States and illegal aliens are not here with said permission and therefore their children born here are not subject to the birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment.

If Plyler v Doyle was a ruling about jurisdiction giving birthright citizenship to those under any and all legal jurisdiction of US law, then why are illegals and legal aliens both not eligible for birthright citizenship if born on US territories of American Samoa or Swain Island?

Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly the US government has jurisdiction on its own territory in the Samoa Islands, but aliens do not get citizenship if born in those territories.
Why if Plyler ruled that jurisdiction = birthright citizenship?

For reference:
US Code - Subchapter III: NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
169 US 649 United States v. Wong Kim Ark | OpenJurist
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/05/plyler-v-doe-1982-and-jurisdiction/
INS v. Rios-Pineda 471 U.S. 444 (1985)
Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies | Human Events

 

[Unkotare]

What part are you not understanding?

Babies born to foreign parents are citizens of their parents nations, not America.

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. All this arguing does not change in any way the FACT that many babies were born in many parts of the US to many kinds of parents today and EVERY one of them is a US citizen; every bit as much and every bit as legitimately and fully a true and legal US citizen as anyone posting on this thread. A true, legal, indisputable FACT.

If some people think the Constitution should be amended, get to work trying to see it happen; but all the typing, harping, hating, and disrespecting that may be posted here won't change a thing.

.

That is the current interpretation of the Law, by the Supreme Court.

I think it is a flawed, even stupid ruling that should be reversed.

And your opinion changes reality 0.00%.

I never claimed otherwise.

Now if Trump is elected because of my OPINION combined with the OPINION of a majority of voters, then my opinion might end up changing reality.


Again, it's red, white and boo


"It was imperfectly odd. It was strangely unsettling. It was uniquely American.

On a balmy early Saturday summer evening, the U.S soccer team played for a prestigious championship in a U.S. stadium ... and was smothered in boos.

Its fans were vastly outnumbered. Its goalkeeper was bathed in a chanted obscenity. Even its national anthem was filled with the blowing of air horns and bouncing of beach balls.

Most of these hostile visitors didn't live in another country. Most, in fact, were not visitors at all, many of them being U.S. residents whose lives are here but whose sporting souls remain elsewhere."


"
"Obviously ... the support that Mexico has on the night like tonight makes it a home game for them," said U.S. Coach Bob Bradley, choosing his words carefully. "It's part of something we have to deal with on the night."

It wasn't just something. It was everything. I've never heard more consistent loud cheering for one team here, from the air horns to the " Ole" chants with each Mexico pass, all set to the soundtrack of a low throbbing roar that began in the parking lot about six hours before the game and continued long into the night.

Even when the U.S. scored the first two goals, the Mexico cheers stayed strong, perhaps inspiring El Tri to four consecutive goals against a U.S. team that seemed dazed and confused. Then when it ended, and the Mexican players had danced across the center of the field in giddy wonder while the U.S. players had staggered to the sidelines in disillusionment, the madness continued.

Because nobody left. Rather amazingly, the Mexico fans kept bouncing and cheering under headbands and sombreros, nobody moving an inch, the giant Rose Bowl jammed for a postgame trophy ceremony for perhaps the first time in its history.

And, yes, when the U.S. team was announced one final time, it was once again booed.

"We're not booing the country, we're booing the team," Sanchez said. "There is a big difference.""




Bullshit Sanchez, your heart is MEXICAN, only your paperwork is American.

A soccer game? Really?


.....

 

[Clementine]

I don't really have a problem with altering U.S. citizenship standards so it works that way, but that's not the way the way U.S. law/policy is applied currently. I do have a problem with revising our policies doing so as you've suggested will force people to be stateless. That's why I linked the content about statelessness.

It's Mexico and others that need to change. The illegal aliens come here to give birth so they can collect welfare for their children and so they can grow up here. Then it would be mean to separate families since Mexico not only doesn't want it's own citizens back, but they don't want the children born here.

This whole thing is out of control. Mexico uses their poor by encouraging them to come here and then send back billions in remittances to help them out. And Mexico does nothing for it's poor citizens.

So, it's not our fault that millions decided to enter illegally and have children here, knowing that they would rightfully be deported if we follow our current laws.

You bring up current laws regarding birthright, but current immigration laws do not allow people to sneak in the country and live here without going through the legal process. It's the people putting themselves in this position and most other countries would never allow it.

The left wants to change it so anyone can come and not worry about deportation. I think we should uphold immigration laws and clarify the law regarding birthright citizenship. If the parents have no business being here, their children should not be given citizenship. We need to change things because this will soon be so out of hand that borders will be non-existent.

Red:
Facts and sources, please. Where is the documentation from the Mexican government that supports your conclusions/claims? Please show it to me for I've not seen it. What I have seen is this:

​

And I've seen the examination into the factual merit of the claims in that 2010 video. I've also read this New York Times article. The rest of what I've seen is various writers, as you have above, opining about what Mexico is and isn't doing and what Mexico's intent is, yet providing no clear evidence that anyone can review on their own to determine whether they agree with those opinions.

As goes Mexican illegal immigrants, there were 5.6 million Mexican unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2014, down from 6.4 million in 2009, according to preliminary Pew Research Center estimates.


Here is the "Guide for the Mexican Migrant" (a 2005 publication) that, as far as I can tell, forms the basis for the opinions and claims conservatives make similar to your "red" ones.

• There is no information on where to cross the border or how to avoid the Border Patrol or U.S. authorities when doing so.
• Two illustrations appear to show migrants in flight from law officers; however, the text does not contain information on how to avoid law enforcement while crossing over. Moreover, it advises people to cooperate if they encounter the border patrol.
  
• The document begins as follows:
  • The purpose of this guide is to provide you with practical advice that may prove useful to you in case you have made the difficult decision to search for employment opportunities outside of your country. The sure way to enter another country is by getting your passport from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the visa, which you may apply for at the embassy or consulate of the country you wish to travel to.
    
    Reading this guide will make you aware of some basic questions about the legal consequences of your stay in the United States of America without the appropriate migratory documents, as well as about the rights you have in that country, once you are there, independent of your migratory status.However, in practice we see many Mexicans who try to cross the Northern Border without the necessary documents, through high risk zones that involve grave dangers, particularly in desert areas or rivers with strong, and not always obvious, currents.
    
    Keep in mind always that there exist legal mechanisms to enter the United States of America legally.
• It continues later saying:
  • DO NOT USE FALSE DOCUMENTS DO NOT USE FALSE DOCUMENTS OR THOSE THAT DO NOT BELONG TO YOU, NOR DECLARE A FALSE NATIONALITY.
    
    If you try crossing with false documents or another person's documents, be aware that using false documents or another person's is a federal crime in the United States, for which you can be criminally tried and jailed; likewise if you use a false name or claim to be a citizen of the United States when you are not one. Do not lie to American government officials whom you encounter.
• The rest of the document discusses
  • the health dangers associated with traveling in a desert
    • DANGERS IN CROSSING HIGH RISK ZONES
      Crossing the river can be very risky, most especially if you cross alone and at night.
      If you are going to walk through the desert, avoid doing so at the hottest times of day. Highways and population centers are far apart, so you will spend several days looking for roads, and you will not be able to carry enough food or water for long periods of time. Also, you can get lost.
  • the danger of becoming involved with "coyotes, polleros" (human traffickers) and advises against interacting with them
    • "They will try to entice you with assurances of crossing in a few hours through the mountains and deserts. Don't believe them! They will put your life at risk by taking you across rivers, drainage canals, desert areas, train tracks, or highways. Many people have died this way."
  • what rights one has in the event one is arrested or detained by American law enforcement/immigration officials.
• There's no encouragement to send money back to the Mexican government or to people in Mexico.
• There's nothing encouraging people to leave Mexico in the first place.

My Conclusions with regard to the evidence I could find that might potentially support your claims above:

• If that "GuÍa" document is your idea of a document informing people on how to succeed at illegally immigrating to the U.S., it's a very lame effort. I damn sure wouldn't rely on that document as a primary source of advice for how to do so. I mean really. Were "encouragement and informing" the intent, among the things that would be paramount to inform folks about were that the intent is how to evade Border Patrol.
• The Mexican government hardly wants people literally dying as they try to get into the U.S., and Mexico surely knows that some of its citizens will try to enter the U.S. via a desert crossing regardless of whether it advises against doing so. It makes sense that at the very least, and for those people' own good, that the Mexican government publish a document that identifies the hazards of trying to cross the desert in an effort to dissuade them from doing so, which is the tone the document takes. The U.S. government would do the same if it knew it had citizens hiking through the desert regardless of why they are doing so.
  
  The U.S. government knows that folks will undertake similarly dangerous treks. It produces some basic information about the safety risks of doing so. That's what democracies (their governments) do; they try to look out for the safety of their citizens no matter what risky pursuit they may try to undertake. That's not an encouragement to engage in a given activity. It's saying "if you're gonna do it, at least be safe about it."

Blue:
??? Can you be considerably more coherent in clarifying, please, whatever idea that paragraph is trying to convey? By definition, no country allows illegal immigration, not even the U.S.

If you want to make a point about folks who come illegally to the U.S., fine. If you want to discuss folks who are born in the U.S. to people who are here illegally, fine. If you want to address folks who travel here legally and give birth while here legally, fine. I'm okay with discussing any of those classes of immigrants/visitors, but I'm not okay with conflating them. I won't do it and I won't engage in a conversation with someone who does that.

If you are trying to assert that no other country allows birthright citizenship, you and I can just stop having a conversation because you're flat out wrong about that and you made no effort to find out whether you were right or wrong before writing the final sentence of the "blue" paragraph. I'm sorry, but I'm at the point now where I have zero tolerance or will for discourse with folks who blatantly verify their own beliefs/ideas and arguments for accuracy, validity and soundness. Loud, strong and wrong just doesn't cut it.


Green:
Here again, documentation please, that is, unless you aver to being a spokesperson for "the left." Either you have clear statements to that effect or you have a strong (valid and sound) argument to that effect. I'm okay with either, but I want to see one or the other.

You are citing some laws. Our government is ignoring the laws, as is Mexico.

It's what is being practiced that caused the problem.

All we hear from Obama is amnesty, Dream Act, etc. Colleges are offering in-state tuition to illegal aliens from other states.

And reports have been coming in for years now from INS regarding the state of the border. Our border guards have their hands tied. While Obama claims security at the border is fine, people who live there and ICE officials tell a different story. They have illegals crossing the border and coming up to them to ask how to get amnesty.

While Obama claims he has deported more people than ever, we get constant reports of illegal alien criminals released in our streets and deportations have been cancelled on a regular basis. We have sanctuary cities flouting immigration laws and protecting illegal aliens from deportation.

I'm not going to spend my afternoon looking for a hundred links for reports that have come in over the years. You can do that instead yourself or look elsewhere in these threads since much has been posted.

Laws are being ignored.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't really have a problem with altering U.S. citizenship standards so it works that way, but that's not the way the way U.S. law/policy is applied currently. I do have a problem with revising our policies doing so as you've suggested will force people to be stateless. That's why I linked the content about statelessness.

It's Mexico and others that need to change. The illegal aliens come here to give birth so they can collect welfare for their children and so they can grow up here. Then it would be mean to separate families since Mexico not only doesn't want it's own citizens back, but they don't want the children born here.

This whole thing is out of control. Mexico uses their poor by encouraging them to come here and then send back billions in remittances to help them out. And Mexico does nothing for it's poor citizens.

So, it's not our fault that millions decided to enter illegally and have children here, knowing that they would rightfully be deported if we follow our current laws.

You bring up current laws regarding birthright, but current immigration laws do not allow people to sneak in the country and live here without going through the legal process. It's the people putting themselves in this position and most other countries would never allow it.

The left wants to change it so anyone can come and not worry about deportation. I think we should uphold immigration laws and clarify the law regarding birthright citizenship. If the parents have no business being here, their children should not be given citizenship. We need to change things because this will soon be so out of hand that borders will be non-existent.

Red:
Facts and sources, please. Where is the documentation from the Mexican government that supports your conclusions/claims? Please show it to me for I've not seen it. What I have seen is this:

​

And I've seen the examination into the factual merit of the claims in that 2010 video. I've also read this New York Times article. The rest of what I've seen is various writers, as you have above, opining about what Mexico is and isn't doing and what Mexico's intent is, yet providing no clear evidence that anyone can review on their own to determine whether they agree with those opinions.

As goes Mexican illegal immigrants, there were 5.6 million Mexican unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2014, down from 6.4 million in 2009, according to preliminary Pew Research Center estimates.


Here is the "Guide for the Mexican Migrant" (a 2005 publication) that, as far as I can tell, forms the basis for the opinions and claims conservatives make similar to your "red" ones.

• There is no information on where to cross the border or how to avoid the Border Patrol or U.S. authorities when doing so.
• Two illustrations appear to show migrants in flight from law officers; however, the text does not contain information on how to avoid law enforcement while crossing over. Moreover, it advises people to cooperate if they encounter the border patrol.
  
• The document begins as follows:
  • The purpose of this guide is to provide you with practical advice that may prove useful to you in case you have made the difficult decision to search for employment opportunities outside of your country. The sure way to enter another country is by getting your passport from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the visa, which you may apply for at the embassy or consulate of the country you wish to travel to.
    
    Reading this guide will make you aware of some basic questions about the legal consequences of your stay in the United States of America without the appropriate migratory documents, as well as about the rights you have in that country, once you are there, independent of your migratory status.However, in practice we see many Mexicans who try to cross the Northern Border without the necessary documents, through high risk zones that involve grave dangers, particularly in desert areas or rivers with strong, and not always obvious, currents.
    
    Keep in mind always that there exist legal mechanisms to enter the United States of America legally.
• It continues later saying:
  • DO NOT USE FALSE DOCUMENTS DO NOT USE FALSE DOCUMENTS OR THOSE THAT DO NOT BELONG TO YOU, NOR DECLARE A FALSE NATIONALITY.
    
    If you try crossing with false documents or another person's documents, be aware that using false documents or another person's is a federal crime in the United States, for which you can be criminally tried and jailed; likewise if you use a false name or claim to be a citizen of the United States when you are not one. Do not lie to American government officials whom you encounter.
• The rest of the document discusses
  • the health dangers associated with traveling in a desert
    • DANGERS IN CROSSING HIGH RISK ZONES
      Crossing the river can be very risky, most especially if you cross alone and at night.
      If you are going to walk through the desert, avoid doing so at the hottest times of day. Highways and population centers are far apart, so you will spend several days looking for roads, and you will not be able to carry enough food or water for long periods of time. Also, you can get lost.
  • the danger of becoming involved with "coyotes, polleros" (human traffickers) and advises against interacting with them
    • "They will try to entice you with assurances of crossing in a few hours through the mountains and deserts. Don't believe them! They will put your life at risk by taking you across rivers, drainage canals, desert areas, train tracks, or highways. Many people have died this way."
  • what rights one has in the event one is arrested or detained by American law enforcement/immigration officials.
• There's no encouragement to send money back to the Mexican government or to people in Mexico.
• There's nothing encouraging people to leave Mexico in the first place.

My Conclusions with regard to the evidence I could find that might potentially support your claims above:

• If that "GuÍa" document is your idea of a document informing people on how to succeed at illegally immigrating to the U.S., it's a very lame effort. I damn sure wouldn't rely on that document as a primary source of advice for how to do so. I mean really. Were "encouragement and informing" the intent, among the things that would be paramount to inform folks about were that the intent is how to evade Border Patrol.
• The Mexican government hardly wants people literally dying as they try to get into the U.S., and Mexico surely knows that some of its citizens will try to enter the U.S. via a desert crossing regardless of whether it advises against doing so. It makes sense that at the very least, and for those people' own good, that the Mexican government publish a document that identifies the hazards of trying to cross the desert in an effort to dissuade them from doing so, which is the tone the document takes. The U.S. government would do the same if it knew it had citizens hiking through the desert regardless of why they are doing so.
  
  The U.S. government knows that folks will undertake similarly dangerous treks. It produces some basic information about the safety risks of doing so. That's what democracies (their governments) do; they try to look out for the safety of their citizens no matter what risky pursuit they may try to undertake. That's not an encouragement to engage in a given activity. It's saying "if you're gonna do it, at least be safe about it."

Blue:
??? Can you be considerably more coherent in clarifying, please, whatever idea that paragraph is trying to convey? By definition, no country allows illegal immigration, not even the U.S.

If you want to make a point about folks who come illegally to the U.S., fine. If you want to discuss folks who are born in the U.S. to people who are here illegally, fine. If you want to address folks who travel here legally and give birth while here legally, fine. I'm okay with discussing any of those classes of immigrants/visitors, but I'm not okay with conflating them. I won't do it and I won't engage in a conversation with someone who does that.

If you are trying to assert that no other country allows birthright citizenship, you and I can just stop having a conversation because you're flat out wrong about that and you made no effort to find out whether you were right or wrong before writing the final sentence of the "blue" paragraph. I'm sorry, but I'm at the point now where I have zero tolerance or will for discourse with folks who blatantly verify their own beliefs/ideas and arguments for accuracy, validity and soundness. Loud, strong and wrong just doesn't cut it.


Green:
Here again, documentation please, that is, unless you aver to being a spokesperson for "the left." Either you have clear statements to that effect or you have a strong (valid and sound) argument to that effect. I'm okay with either, but I want to see one or the other.

You are citing some laws. Our government is ignoring the laws, as is Mexico.

It's what is being practiced that caused the problem.

All we hear from Obama is amnesty, Dream Act, etc. Colleges are offering in-state tuition to illegal aliens from other states.

And reports have been coming in for years now from INS regarding the state of the border. Our border guards have their hands tied. While Obama claims security at the border is fine, people who live there and ICE officials tell a different story. They have illegals crossing the border and coming up to them to ask how to get amnesty.

While Obama claims he has deported more people than ever, we get constant reports of illegal alien criminals released in our streets and deportations have been cancelled on a regular basis. We have sanctuary cities flouting immigration laws and protecting illegal aliens from deportation.

I'm not going to spend my afternoon looking for a hundred links for reports that have come in over the years. You can do that instead yourself or look elsewhere in these threads since much has been posted.

Laws are being ignored.

The college thing is especially annoying considering that many of our OWN citizens don't get to go to college.

 

[JoeMoma]

• "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.

With the current justices of the court, I think it is very unlikely that the supreme court would change the government's current interpretation of that phrase and put an end to anchor babies. Since millions of children of illegal immigrants have been given citizenship, it is unlikely the court will take citizenship away from them.

Having said that, I would not find it unreasonable to amend the constitution so that future children of illegal immigrants are not granted birthright citizenship status in the united states.

 

[ptbw forever]

IMHO, which makes no more difference than anyone else's:

I don't think that any child born in the US to parents who came here illegally should 'AUTOMATICALLY' be named / made US citizens. Babies become 'tools' - leverage - to use for the argument for the parents to be able to stay.

It's like a criminal breaking into your house, delivering a baby, then declaring the baby is now part of your family and the house is just as much the baby's (and thus theirs) as it is yours. Ummm, NO!

What do you call the baby of illegal immigrants who 'broke into our house'? The baby of illegal immigrants who broke into 'our house.

If you go to Japan and are even there legally, last time I was there and my daughter was born we weren't given the option of her having Japanese citizenship.

If 'you' want to be COMPLETELY honest about the whole illegal immigration issue one must recognize that to Liberals illegal immigrants are nothing more than 'tools' - VOTES - because they know once here they have nothing and will become completely dependent on all the AMERCIAN TAX PAYER-FUNDED 'freebies' the Libs will dish out, growing the size of the 'economic slavery' 'plantation'.

Never mind that the social programs that already exist are over-burdening this country's economy and future, straining it more and more towards collapse. Politicians are determined to milk it as long as they can.

The existing social programs are also NOT designed to get anyone OFF these programs. Dependency on these programs and on those who will keep handing out the 'freebies' is critical to continuing to secure the votes.

So, as the circle completes itself in this discussion, who else are those who support illegal immigration going to vote for - the guy who opposes illegal immigration or the person who wants to not only want to bring in illegals but 'refugees' as well?!

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAN'T VOTE. Why do people keep using this argument? It's stupid.

You clearly don't live in New York City.

 

[Unkotare]

..... Give the anchor babies the boot right along with their parents. If they want to come back, get in line like the rest of the world does.

You can't "give the boot" to US citizens, and we are NOT going to.

Anchor babies are counterfeit citizens .....

No such thing. Any baby born in the US is every bit as much a citizen as you or me. That's reality, and we are NOT going to deport US citizens. The sooner people set aside the silly emoting, the sooner serious discussion of the serious issue of illegal immigration can be addressed.

.