Business Insider misleads its readers on birthright citizenship.

[Unkotare]

It is a commonly used, descriptive phrase.
...

Being "commonly used" doesn't make it real.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Second if they are responsible for the sins of their fathers, so are you and we need to enact reparations ASAP.

Slavery Was Punishment, Not a "Sin." Savages Needed to Be Tamed.

You race-traitors are winning because your weakling opponents want to shift the blame to their forefathers, who did nothing wrong by not turning loose the savages on their own generation of Whites. Blame the powerful few who did enable the Indigian savages.

 

[Unkotare]

...

You race-traitors ...

???

What the hell do you mean by that?

 

[Unkotare]

Slavery Was Punishment, Not a "Sin." Savages Needed to Be Tamed.
....

You'd better think about that carefully.

 

[johnwk]

Being "commonly used" doesn't make it real.

But in this case, sexual deviant is real, and is even confirmed by the sexual deviant community who use letters of our alphabet to notate their specific sexual deviant behaviors.

 

[johnwk]

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen.

Not according to our Supreme Court nor those who framed and debated the Fourteenth Amendment.

See the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873), in which the Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”

And in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) our S.C. points out:

"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized..."

And, let us not forget what John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, indicated with regard to the meaning of "jurisdiction" and stated the following:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)

And, Trumbull echos the same thinking during the Fourteenth Amendment debates:

"[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." LINK

And how does a foreign national become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under which birthright citizenship would apply to a babe born on American soil to said foreign national? By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America


“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

JWK
Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

 

[Unkotare]

Not according to our Supreme Court ..

Precisely according to the Supreme Court.

 

[Unkotare]

But in this case, sexual deviant is real, and is even confirmed by the sexual deviant community who use letters of our alphabet to notate their specific sexual deviant behaviors.

???
What are you talking about?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

johnwk's conspiracy alphabet deviancy is off the record books: it's just flat weird.

I am thinking we having a planned campaign of judicial terrorism to overthrow our constitutional American way of life by perverting the courts.

 

[johnwk]

???
What are you talking about?

The terms "anchor baby" and "sexual deviants" are real.

 

[Unkotare]

There is no such thing as an “anchor baby.”

 

[johnwk]

There is no such thing as an “anchor baby.”

According to you, but . . .

The term "anchor baby" is used to refer to a child born to a non-citizen mother in a country that has birthright citizenship which will therefore help the mother and other family members gain legal residency . The term is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who automatically qualifies as an American citizen under jus soli and the rights guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution . The term is also often used in the context of the debate over illegal immigration to the United States.

I hope that helps!

Source: Conversation with Bing, 7/4/2023
(1) Anchor baby - Wikipedia. Anchor baby - Wikipedia.
(2) What Is an Anchor Baby? | LegalMatch. What Is an Anchor Baby?.
(3) Anchor baby Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anchor-baby.


Here is the birth of an anchor baby:

 

[Unkotare]

According to you, ...

According to immigration law.

 

[Unkotare]

... a child born to a non-citizen mother in a country that has birthright citizenship which will therefore help the mother and other family members gain legal residency . ...

It doesn't work that way, regardless of what hysterical dumbasses want to think.

 

[johnwk]

According to immigration law.

No. According to you there is no such thing as an “anchor baby.”

 

[Unkotare]

No. According to you there is no such thing as an “anchor baby.”

According to immigration law, there isn’t.

 

[johnwk]

According to immigration law, there isn’t.

The evidence is to the contrary.

 

[Lesh]

Slavery Was Punishment, Not a "Sin." Savages Needed to Be Tamed.

You race-traitors are winning because your weakling opponents want to shift the blame to their forefathers, who did nothing wrong by not turning loose the savages on their own generation of Whites. Blame the powerful few who did enable the Indigian savages.

“Race traitors”???

Is this Stormfront now?

 

[Unkotare]

The evidence is to the contrary.

No, there is evidence of people staying in the country illegally. Having a US citizen child does not change the parents immigration status. That is the reality of immigration law whether you like it or not.

 

[johnwk]

No, there is evidence of people staying in the country illegally. Having a US citizen child does not change the parents immigration status. That is the reality of immigration law whether you like it or not.

I appreciate your opinions but, our Supreme Court disagrees with you on birthright citizenship being granted to a foreign national while on American soil, and those who framed and debated the Fourteenth Amendment, likewise disagree with your sophomoric unsubstantiated opinion.

See the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873), in which the Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”

And in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) our S.C. points out:

"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized..."

And, let us not forget what John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, indicated with regard to the meaning of "jurisdiction" and stated the following:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)

And, Trumbull echos the same thinking during the Fourteenth Amendment debates:

"[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." LINK

And how does a foreign national become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under which birthright citizenship would apply to a babe born on American soil to said foreign national? By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America


“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?