Business Insider misleads its readers on birthright citizenship.

[Unkotare]

Wrong again. What we have is an idiotic interpretation of the law that leads to big problems.

You know. Your kind of policy.

Why tell us instead of the SC? Why not write your congressman and urge him to take action?

 

[BackAgain]

It's just that simple. Spanish, French law, etc is not US law. No other country's law has any jurisdiction on U.S soil. Why is that impossible for you to comprehend?
,

No. You are simple. The concept you’re attempting to discuss is complex. Your efforts to say otherwise underscore how devoid of knowledge you are.

Besides which, I didn’t claim other nations had any say about our law in our land. And I didn’t imply it or suggest it.

But by all means, please pretend that your commentary is anything but delusional.

 

[Unkotare]

And the reality is, our Supreme Court, and those who framed and debated the Fourteenth Amendment, as documented HERE, confirms that a baby born to an illegal entrant foreign national, while on American soil, is not granted citizenship upon birth.

But hey, I'm still waiting for one of our resident geniuses to quote the alleged "law" indicating a baby born to an illegal entrant foreign national, while on American soil, meets the qualifier in the Fourteenth Amendment for citizenship upon birth.

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, subdue and bring to its knees a prosperous and freedom loving country than by flooding it with deadly drugs, an inflated currency and the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, and criminal populations of other countries.

According to US IMMIGRATION LAW anyone born in the US IS a US citizen. That is reality. That is fact. Go write a letter to your congressman.

 

[BackAgain]

Why tell us instead of the SC? Why not write your congressman and urge him to take action?

Why do you insist on asking simplistic, bombastic and insignificant questions?

 

[surada]

No. You are simple. The concept you’re attempting to discuss is complex. Your efforts to say otherwise underscore how devoid of knowledge you are.

Besides which, I didn’t claim other nations had any say about our law in our land. And I didn’t imply it or suggest it.

But by all means, please pretend that your commentary is anything but delusional.

Call your local law school and ask.

 

[johnwk]

That's not what US law says.

That's exactly what our Supreme Court, and those who framed and debated the Fourteenth Amendment, say the law is, and is documented HERE.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[Unkotare]

Why do you insist on asking simplistic, bombastic and insignificant questions?

Why do you avoid answering them? What are you afraid of?

 

[BackAgain]

According to US IMMIGRATION LAW anyone born in the US IS a US citizen. That is reality. That is fact. Go write a letter to your congressman.

Specifically what part of our immigration law says that?

 

[Unkotare]

That's exactly what our Supreme Court, and those who framed and debated the Fourteenth Amendment, say the law is, and is documented HERE.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

According to US IMMIGRATION LAW anyone born in the US IS a US citizen. That is reality. That is fact. Go write a letter to your congressman.

 

[Unkotare]

Specifically what part of our immigration law says that?

The part informed by the 14th Amendment. Write your congressman and ask him to explain it.

 

[meaner gene]

I found nothing in there indicating a baby born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on American soil is a citizen upon birth.

(a)a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(f)a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

 

[surada]

That's exactly what our Supreme Court, and those who framed and debated the Fourteenth Amendment, say the law is, and is documented HERE.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Why don't you just read the statute? It's perfectly clear.

 

[BackAgain]

Why do you avoid answering them? What are you afraid of?

Wtf are you babbling about now?

You’re the moron who claimed what the US law “says.”

As is so often the case, you’re wrong.

Smarten up, punk.

The actual US law on the matter is governed by what Congress provided and it tracks the Amendment.

§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth​

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

That last clause isn’t there for no reason.

You are free to pretend that it means nothing. But it does mean something.

Now some folks say that its sole purpose is to exclude enemy soldiers who may have invaded our land AND, of course, to exclude the children of ambassadors and consular staffs. And those are undeniably some reasons for that clause.

But the question is whether the Constitution and that law contemplate more than just those two exceptions. OR, in the alternative, does the clause also encompass children of illegal immigrants who don’t seem to owe any allegiance to this land (whose law they broke upon entry, etc.)?

 

[BackAgain]

The part informed by the 14th Amendment. Write your congressman and ask him to explain it.

You’re bloviating out of your endless supply of ignorance.

 

[Unkotare]

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a)
a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b)
a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c)
a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d)
a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e)
a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f)
a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g)
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h)
a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

 

[BackAgain]

Call your local law school and ask.

No need. Unlike you, I already learned it.

You haven’t.

 

[surada]

Wtf are you babbling about now?

You’re the moron who claimed what the US law “says.”

As is so often the case, you’re wrong.

Smarten up, punk.

The actual US law on the matter is governed by what Congress provided and it tracks the Amendment.



That last clause isn’t there for no reason.

You are free to pretend that it means nothing. But it does mean something.

Now some folks say that its sole purpose is to exclude enemy soldiers who may have invaded our land AND, of course, to exclude the children of ambassadors and consular staffs. And those are undeniably some reasons for that clause.

But the question is whether the Constitution and that law contemplate more than just those two exceptions. OR, in the alternative, does the clause also encompass children of illegal immigrants who don’t seem to owe any allegiance to this land (whose law they broke upon entry, etc.)?

Pretty specific, isn't it?
Allegiance has nothing to do with US jurisdiction. Nothing. If your Allegiance is to Spain or any other country it still has no jurisdiction in the US.

 

[BackAgain]

According to US IMMIGRATION LAW anyone born in the US IS a US citizen. That is reality. That is fact. Go write a letter to your congressman.

No. You’re wrong. Again.

 

[Unkotare]

...

That last clause isn’t there for no reason.
...

Which has been explained to you many times, yet you still pretend not to understand it. Go take it up with the SC.

 

[Unkotare]

According to US IMMIGRATION LAW anyone born in the US IS a US citizen. That is reality. That is fact. Go write a letter to your congressman.

.