Business Insider misleads its readers on birthright citizenship.

[BackAgain]

Are you chickenshit or something? Call a lawyer.

Why? He cited case law. Supreme Court case law at that. To actual facts, which you cannot handle, you resort yet again to yiur ignorant and meaningless new catch phrase.

Apparently you’re afraid of facts and discovering how wrong you are.

 

[surada]

I’m correct. You remain flatly wrong.

It’s not just because you’re a stupid, petty, arrogant paralegal, either. Although you are. It’s more because you refuse to allow actual facts interfere with your poor thinking skills. You are an educable mental retard.

Call a lawyer. I will not rub your nose in it. Currently you are deceiving a lot of posters.

 

[surada]

Why? He cited case law. Supreme Court case law at that. To actual facts, which you cannot handle, you resort yet again to yiur ignorant and meaningless new catch phrase.

Apparently you’re afraid of facts and discovering how wrong you are.

Call a lawyer. If you're right you have nothing to be afraid of.

 

[BackAgain]

Call a lawyer. I will not rub your nose in it. Currently you are deceiving a lot of posters.

No. The deception is on you.

But I like to correct your mistakes and other propaganda when I see them.

You cannot argue facts. And obviously you don’t understand anything about legal training.

Still and all, the 14th Amendment like the immigration law itself, simply does NOT support the legal notion of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.

And every time actual court cases and similar analysis and facts are presented to you, your robotic simpleton response is deflection and conjecture.

You are quite dishonest.

 

[Foxfyre]

Also consistent with the idea of jurisdiction, the U.S.-born children of aliens (other than diplomats and armies) were considered U.S. citizens. In McCreery's Lessee v. Somerville (1824), for example, the Supreme Court (per Justice Story) treated as uncontroversial the U.S. citizenship of the U.S.-born child of Irish alien parents. In Lynch v. Clarke (1844), a New York court directly held that U.S.-born children of alien temporary visitors were U.S. citizens.

Thus when the Fourteenth Amendment's drafters picked the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction," it had an established meaning that was already closely connected to citizenship. The first part of the citizenship clause ("born in the United States") adopted the territorial principle of jus soli. The second part embraced the longstanding exclusions from the jus soli principle: people in U.S. territory but nonetheless not under U.S. sovereign authority, namely diplomats, foreign armies and tribal Native Americans, who had not traditionally been born citizens.

The Senate debates, where the citizenship clause was developed, bear this out. Initially, the proposed Amendment guaranteed rights to citizens without defining citizens. Senator Wade pointed this out and suggested guaranteeing rights to all persons born in the United States. Senator Fessenden objected that some U.S.-born people were not citizens under existing law (which Wade acknowledged, mentioning ambassadors). Senator Howard then proposed the language that became the citizenship clause, describing the "subject to the jurisdiction" language as excluding children of ambassadors.

Senators next debated whether Howard's language continued the exclusion of tribal Native Americans from citizenship (which they favored). Howard said that it did, adopting the prior explanation that U.S. laws didn't extend to the tribes' internal affairs. A revision to expressly exclude tribal members was defeated as unnecessary.

Finally, the Senators considered the citizenship of U.S.-born children of aliens. Senator Cowan objected (in overtly racial terms) that the proposal would make citizens of U.S.-born children of Chinese immigrants on the West Coast. California Senator Conness (himself an Irish immigrant) agreed it would have this effect, but enthusiastically endorsed it. No Senator disagreed with the Cowan/Conness interpretation, including Howard (who wrote the clause) and Senator Trumbull (who originally introduced the proposed Amendment). Indeed, in an earlier exchange with Cowan, Trumbull said that U.S.-born children of Chinese immigrants (like all U.S.-born children of immigrants) should be considered citizens. And the Senate then adopted Howard's language without further revision...

Read more about this here below.

It seems to me, they knew when the amendment was introduced that it included children born on our soil by immigrants other than diplomats and foreign armies and Native Americans during that time period.

The Original Meaning of "Subject to the Jurisdiction" of the United States

All the more reason we need a constitutional amendment FAST to remove jus solis and replace it with only children of at least one U.S. citizen receive automatic citizenship.

When the constitution was signed the entire population of the USA was roughly 4 million people. The Founders never in their wildest imagination thought of a nation of more than 330 million people and certainly did not envision a government allowing an invasion of millions and millions more across our southern border. If they had that kind of foresight, they never would have written the citizenship requirement the way they did.

 

[Unkotare]

The simpleton Unko (God help his students) reverts to his moronic form.

And reality has still not changed to suit your agenda. Anyone born in the United States is a United States citizen. That’s it, that’s all, whether you like it or not. There are babies being born right at this moment to people of all sorts of immigration status and every single one of them born in the United States is every bit the US citizen that you are. And for exactly the same reason.

 

[Foxfyre]

And reality has still not changed to suit your agenda. Anyone born in the United States is a United States citizen. That’s it, that’s all, whether you like it or not. There are babies being born right at this moment to people of all sorts of immigration status and every single one of them born in the United States is every bit the US citizen that you are. And for exactly the same reason.

And you approve of that? I said only children born with at least one U.S. citizen parent should be automatic citizens and you marked my post disagree. Why?

Why would you oppose changing constitutional law to replace jus solis with jus sanguinis that is the law in almost all other countries?

 

[Unkotare]

And you approve of that? ...

Yes I do.

 

[johnwk]

Are you chickenshit or something? Call a lawyer.

You never answered my questions.


Have you already forgotten what our Supreme Court has stated in the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) and in Elk v. Wilkins (1884)?

Are you saying you disagree with what the Supreme Court has already stated with regard to the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as the words appear in the Fourteenth Amendment?

 

[surada]

You never answered my questions.


Have you already forgotten what our Supreme Court has stated in the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) and in Elk v. Wilkins (1884)?

Are you saying you disagree with what the Supreme Court has already stated with regard to the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as the words appear in the Fourteenth Amendment?

Throw those cases in your lawyer's face.

 

[Unkotare]

....

Why would you oppose changing constitutional law to replace jus solis with jus sanguinis that is the law in almost all other countries?

#1 I couldn't give less of a shit what "other countries" do.

#2 I see America as a uniquely immigrant country, and this tradition is a unique characteristic that contributes to the history and culture of my great nation.

#3 I believe that most (not all) people who are most adamantly and emotionally opposed to birthright citizenship (as is the current law of the land) are in fact frothing "I hate ALL immigrants!" or "dark people! dark people!" assholes, so fuck them.

 

[johnwk]

Yes I do.

If that is so, then you approve of our Constitution being ignored and to hell with the rule of law. Is that correct?

 

[Unkotare]

And reality has still not changed to suit your agenda. Anyone born in the United States is a United States citizen. That’s it, that’s all, whether you like it or not. There are babies being born right at this moment to people of all sorts of immigration status and every single one of them born in the United States is every bit the US citizen that you are. And for exactly the same reason.

.

 

[Unkotare]

If that is so, then you approve of our Constitution being ignored and to hell with the rule of law. Is that correct?

Why are you whining and crying to me instead of your elected representatives? You are not going to accomplish anything by repeating your misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment here over and over. Just wallowing in your ignorance here won't change anyone's mind or make you feel better.

 

[johnwk]

#3 I believe that most (not all) people who are most adamantly and emotionally opposed to birthright citizenship (as is the current law of the land) are in fact frothing "I hate ALL immigrants!" or "dark people! dark people!" assholes, so fuck them.

So, you disagree with Bernadette Lancelin?





How about Natasha Dunn and Chicago’s South Shore residents. Do you disagree with them too?






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.

 

[Unkotare]

So, you disagree with Bernadette Lancelin?

Didn't watch the vid. If she misunderstands the 14th the same way you do, then I guess I disagree with her.

 

[surada]

If that is so, then you approve of our Constitution being ignored and to hell with the rule of law. Is that correct?

You're talking about state citizenship. I had to laugh. That moron DeSantis says Florida won't recognize Vermont driver's licenses.

Call a lawyer and get back to me.

 

[surada]

If that is so, then you approve of our Constitution being ignored and to hell with the rule of law. Is that correct?

So you'd be a citizen of Virginia or wherever you were born, but not a US citizen? lolol

 

[johnwk]

Didn't watch the vid. If she misunderstands the 14th the same way you do, then I guess I disagree with her.

You did write: #3 I believe that most (not all) people who are most adamantly and emotionally opposed to birthright citizenship (as is the current law of the land) are in fact frothing "I hate ALL immigrants!" or "dark people! dark people!" assholes, so fuck them.

So, do you disagree with Bernadette Lancelin?




How about Natasha Dunn and Chicago’s South Shore residents. Do you disagree with them too?






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.

 

[Unkotare]

You did write: #3 I believe that most (not all) people who are most adamantly and emotionally opposed to birthright citizenship (as is the current law of the land) are in fact frothing "I hate ALL immigrants!" or "dark people! dark people!" assholes, so fuck them.

So, do you disagree with Bernadette Lancelin?




How about Natasha Dunn and Chicago’s South Shore residents. Do you disagree with them too?






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.

Again, didn't watch the vids. Outline what they said if it's important to you.