If you support Trump ending Birthright Citizenship via executive order you're a hypocrite.

[ThisIsMe]

Actually they haven't. That article you posted didn't any ruling by the SC, only the court of appeals.

Of course there was a ruling. It was unanimous. The appellates filed a claim against the Attorney General to force him to reopen their immigration case, where the last standing was to deport them. They managed to get their case presented before the Supreme Court, who ruled 9-0, the Attorney General has the the power to deny a motion to reopen for discretionary reasons.

But in their ruling, they maintained the long standing accordance that children born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens.

So, maybe I'm just not seeing it. I read the entire article twice and downloaded the pdf report and in all of that, I could only ever see where the case was brought to the court of appeals and the bureau of immigration appeals. I've not seen anything where it was argued in the supreme court, and haven't seen anything about the 9-0 decision of the supreme court.

Could you link the article of where it says the SC argued this case?

INS v. Rios-Pineda: The Authority of the Attorney General to Deny Motions to Reopen | myattorneyusa

So, I went have time to read the article in full until later, from skimming through it, it appears that the SC only made a decision on whether or not to allow BIA to reopen the case. It doesn't appear they argued anything in regards to the child being a citizen or the interpretation of the 14th amendment.

I didn’t say the parents argued their child is a U.S. citizen. I said the Supreme Court recognized that in their ruling — which you didn’t even think existed.

INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

Respondents husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, were smuggled illegally into the United States in 1974. Respondent husband was apprehended in 1978, and, although at his request he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation, he refused to leave as promised. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen.​

But that was a quote from the appeals court, not the supreme court.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because of the Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof. That would not be included if it meant non-citizens could have American babies simply by having them in the country.

Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If they weren’t, they’d be immune from the law like diplomats; who are in the only class excluded from the 14th Amendment.

What it means is that there can't be an allegiance to another country. If illegals are here and have a child, their home country has claims on that child. That child is still a citizen of their country.

John McCain was born overseas because his father was in the service. John was an automatic citizen because he was born to two US citizens. If something happened to his parents, he would have been shipped back to his home country--the United States.

”What it means is that there can't be an allegiance to another country.”

No, it doesn’t mean that at all. If it did, then even babies born to foreign legal residents wouldn’t be U.S. citizens and not even you brain-dead righties are arguing that.

Even worse for your ridiculous assertion, if it were true, that would mean 4 of trump’s 5 kids are not U.S. citizens and are here illegally since their mothers had allegiance to another country when they were born.

So when do you demand his kids get deported?

When you say "legal foreign residents", you mean people who have gained citizenship? If so, then their allegiance is no longer legally tied to another country.

Trump is and was a citizen when his children were born.

No, I mean foreigners who are not citizens. How did you not get that from my post when I pointed out that 2 of trump’s 3 wives were not U.S. citizens when their children were born?

And so what if trump was a citizen? That other poster asserted they would be born with allegiance to another country because their mother had allegiance to another country.

So when do trump’s kids get deported?

Only 1 parent needs be a citizen, trump is a citizen, so his children are citizens.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If they weren’t, they’d be immune from the law like diplomats; who are in the only class excluded from the 14th Amendment.

What it means is that there can't be an allegiance to another country. If illegals are here and have a child, their home country has claims on that child. That child is still a citizen of their country.

John McCain was born overseas because his father was in the service. John was an automatic citizen because he was born to two US citizens. If something happened to his parents, he would have been shipped back to his home country--the United States.

”What it means is that there can't be an allegiance to another country.”

No, it doesn’t mean that at all. If it did, then even babies born to foreign legal residents wouldn’t be U.S. citizens and not even you brain-dead righties are arguing that.

Even worse for your ridiculous assertion, if it were true, that would mean 4 of trump’s 5 kids are not U.S. citizens and are here illegally since their mothers had allegiance to another country when they were born.

So when do you demand his kids get deported?

When you say "legal foreign residents", you mean people who have gained citizenship? If so, then their allegiance is no longer legally tied to another country.

Trump is and was a citizen when his children were born.

No, I mean foreigners who are not citizens. How did you not get that from my post when I pointed out that 2 of trump’s 3 wives were not U.S. citizens when their children were born?

And so what if trump was a citizen? That other poster asserted they would be born with allegiance to another country because their mother had allegiance to another country.

So when do trump’s kids get deported?

Only 1 parent needs be a citizen, trump is a citizen, so his children are citizens.

Oh, Yah, prove it. Let's see his Birth Cirtificate. (that should start about a 300 message line by itself)

This damnned message basee is lagggiing bad again. And they wantt me tto ssennd money? For what, for having to continously hit delete to edit my possts?/

 

[Unkotare]

Its not hypocrisy when the 14th amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to illegal anchor babies. Trump has the guts to correct this and force the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment which is their job.

The word "all" is in it, good luck trying to clarify a clear word.

No rational person believes in illegal anchor baby citizenship ...

...?

 

[sakinago]

LOL no dummy the newborn is not a resident and neither is the illegal parent. An anchor baby is born on a plane at 30,000 feet over the US, is that anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. An anchor baby is born 1 mile off shore in US waters, is the anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. And we'll keep walking this argument in, an illegal steps 2 feet into the US illegally and has an anchor baby, is the anchor baby a US citizen? Nope. Your worst nightmare is for the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment, no more anchor babies.

LOL

Dumbfuck, the SCOTUS has already ruled. Children born in the jurisdiction of the U.S., even to illegal aliens, are U.S. citizens. And moron, if a baby legally born in the US.S. isn’t a resident, then no baby is, meaning according to your nuttiness, no one is born a U.S. citizen.

Can you please link this supreme court case? I'd like to see where the SC has ruled on this. If this is the case, and the SC did actually already interpret that children born to illegals withing the borders of the United states, then this issue is settled and no need to go further with it.

INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

Respondents husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, were smuggled illegally into the United States in 1974. Respondent husband was apprehended in 1978, and, although at his request he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation, he refused to leave as promised. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen.

That’s not the whole case, and it operates with the a priori assumption that birthright citizenship applies as long in the US no matter what. The actual issue has not been hashed out by SCOTUS or any other court. This is what I said in my post. Not a case of birthright citizenship being hashed out, this was a case in which an illegal immigrant had a child in the US, they claimed it was extreme hardship to suspend deportation. BTW his request for suspension of deportation got DENIED. Again not a case involving birthright citizenship at all, it was a deportation case.

So? The highest court in the land acknowledged the 14th Amendment designates babies born in the U.S. of illegal immigrants are U.S. citizens.

No, what you posted was the argument made for the illegal alien by his counsel. One last time, that SCOTUS case was not at all about the application of birthright citizenship. It was a case about the deportation of an actual illegal immigrant, not about the kid. Closest case to what this thread is about is the Wong Kim Ark case.

 

[Wayne Adams]

Its not hypocrisy when the 14th amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to illegal anchor babies. Trump has the guts to correct this and force the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment which is their job.

The word "all" is in it, good luck trying to clarify a clear word.

No rational person believes in illegal anchor baby citizenship you fools are going to lose.

The state to watch to make that determination is in Georgia. There, the democrat, Stacey Abrams, wants undocumented immigrants to have the privilege of voting. Oprah Winfrey is campaigning on her behalf as is Robert DeNiro. Abrams is also anti-gun. The polls are saying it is a dead heat. Somebody out there is for the undocumented taking over. See how far left is willing to go with this:

Dem Donor Network Wants Reparations On Agenda By 2022

Kemp, Abrams have opposing views on undocumented immigrants, HOPE Scholarship

Stacey Abrams: Her Official Anti-Gun Record (Read It) – Georgia Gun Owners

The mayor of Atlanta no longer keeps undocumented foreigners in jail. If Abrams wins, Georgia becomes a sanctuary state. Watch the election. Arizona may not be far behind. The polls say you're wrong, but if Kemp grabs like 53 percent of the vote and wins in spite of the millions Hollywood is pouring into Georgia, I'd be glad to buy you lunch, shake your hand, and admit that you were more in touch with the masses than I am. Personally, I'm scared, but am hopeful the media is FOS and Kemp gets at least 53 percent of the vote.

I play long ball, I know that eventually the country will become furious over illegals and these politicians will shit themselves.

The right has had control over this issue for fifteen plus years. They yet to get any significant portion of their solutions put into law and have repeatedly gotten shot down in the SCOTUS.

Every week that goes by means there are more liberals than conservatives and you don't have any appreciable number of constitutionalists. I have to disagree with you on this. Sorry.

 

[sakinago]

LOL

Dumbfuck, the SCOTUS has already ruled. Children born in the jurisdiction of the U.S., even to illegal aliens, are U.S. citizens. And moron, if a baby legally born in the US.S. isn’t a resident, then no baby is, meaning according to your nuttiness, no one is born a U.S. citizen.

Can you please link this supreme court case? I'd like to see where the SC has ruled on this. If this is the case, and the SC did actually already interpret that children born to illegals withing the borders of the United states, then this issue is settled and no need to go further with it.

INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

Respondents husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, were smuggled illegally into the United States in 1974. Respondent husband was apprehended in 1978, and, although at his request he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation, he refused to leave as promised. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen.

That’s not the whole case, and it operates with the a priori assumption that birthright citizenship applies as long in the US no matter what. The actual issue has not been hashed out by SCOTUS or any other court. This is what I said in my post. Not a case of birthright citizenship being hashed out, this was a case in which an illegal immigrant had a child in the US, they claimed it was extreme hardship to suspend deportation. BTW his request for suspension of deportation got DENIED. Again not a case involving birthright citizenship at all, it was a deportation case.

So? The highest court in the land acknowledged the 14th Amendment designates babies born in the U.S. of illegal immigrants are U.S. citizens.

You have the correct interpretation - born here = citizen

Can the Child of an Undocumented Immigrant Become a U.S. Citizen?

This is the a priori assumption that would be argued in the courts. We’ve already seen a case of legal immigrants who had a kid in the US, went back to China, and had that birthright citizenship argued all the way to the supreme Supreme Court. Not at all outside of realm to have birthright citizenship of illegal immigrants argued in front of the Supreme Court, that’s actually an easier case to make. This has been the point of the debate for some time now. We all are aware of the a priori assumption, stop pointing to it, it is a no shit statement.

 

[BluesLegend]

Its not hypocrisy when the 14th amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to illegal anchor babies. Trump has the guts to correct this and force the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment which is their job.

The word "all" is in it, good luck trying to clarify a clear word.

No rational person believes in illegal anchor baby citizenship you fools are going to lose.

The state to watch to make that determination is in Georgia. There, the democrat, Stacey Abrams, wants undocumented immigrants to have the privilege of voting. Oprah Winfrey is campaigning on her behalf as is Robert DeNiro. Abrams is also anti-gun. The polls are saying it is a dead heat. Somebody out there is for the undocumented taking over. See how far left is willing to go with this:

Dem Donor Network Wants Reparations On Agenda By 2022

Kemp, Abrams have opposing views on undocumented immigrants, HOPE Scholarship

Stacey Abrams: Her Official Anti-Gun Record (Read It) – Georgia Gun Owners

The mayor of Atlanta no longer keeps undocumented foreigners in jail. If Abrams wins, Georgia becomes a sanctuary state. Watch the election. Arizona may not be far behind. The polls say you're wrong, but if Kemp grabs like 53 percent of the vote and wins in spite of the millions Hollywood is pouring into Georgia, I'd be glad to buy you lunch, shake your hand, and admit that you were more in touch with the masses than I am. Personally, I'm scared, but am hopeful the media is FOS and Kemp gets at least 53 percent of the vote.

I play long ball, I know that eventually the country will become furious over illegals and these politicians will shit themselves.

The right has had control over this issue for fifteen plus years. They yet to get any significant portion of their solutions put into law and have repeatedly gotten shot down in the SCOTUS.

Every week that goes by means there are more liberals than conservatives and you don't have any appreciable number of constitutionalists. I have to disagree with you on this. Sorry.

I think you meant Dem's and traitor RINO's like the Bush's and Kasich.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Looking in the mirror again?

Likely In his pants

You’re looking in his pants?

Come on, you wouldn’t be curious to see the worlds’ smallest pecker?

Well, if you get a microscope for Christmas, you can lend it to a friend, drop your drawers, and ask them to see if they can find it.

As long as I can slap you with it afterwards...deal?

Candy is north of 70 and was a stripper her whole life. You best be up on your shots if that is your plan...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The word "all" is in it, good luck trying to clarify a clear word.

No rational person believes in illegal anchor baby citizenship you fools are going to lose.

The state to watch to make that determination is in Georgia. There, the democrat, Stacey Abrams, wants undocumented immigrants to have the privilege of voting. Oprah Winfrey is campaigning on her behalf as is Robert DeNiro. Abrams is also anti-gun. The polls are saying it is a dead heat. Somebody out there is for the undocumented taking over. See how far left is willing to go with this:

Dem Donor Network Wants Reparations On Agenda By 2022

Kemp, Abrams have opposing views on undocumented immigrants, HOPE Scholarship

Stacey Abrams: Her Official Anti-Gun Record (Read It) – Georgia Gun Owners

The mayor of Atlanta no longer keeps undocumented foreigners in jail. If Abrams wins, Georgia becomes a sanctuary state. Watch the election. Arizona may not be far behind. The polls say you're wrong, but if Kemp grabs like 53 percent of the vote and wins in spite of the millions Hollywood is pouring into Georgia, I'd be glad to buy you lunch, shake your hand, and admit that you were more in touch with the masses than I am. Personally, I'm scared, but am hopeful the media is FOS and Kemp gets at least 53 percent of the vote.

I play long ball, I know that eventually the country will become furious over illegals and these politicians will shit themselves.

The right has had control over this issue for fifteen plus years. They yet to get any significant portion of their solutions put into law and have repeatedly gotten shot down in the SCOTUS.

Every week that goes by means there are more liberals than conservatives and you don't have any appreciable number of constitutionalists. I have to disagree with you on this. Sorry.

I think you meant Dem's and traitor RINO's like the Bush's and Kasich.

Oh, Please, stop with the Rino crap. That would mean that MOST Republicans would be Rinos if judged by the same scale. You are definitely a minority in the Republican Party being that you are actually a John Birch Society Plant. But that will be corrected in time.

The fact remains that the Reps have had control and it still has not been addressed. The 14th amendment should have been edited decades ago. Just how many women would stop coming here to have their children if they knew that their child that was born in the US would be deported along with her? That would stop an entire class of Illegal Immigrants. While I loath Trump (when I see him posturing, I see a little Italian from long ago) we DO need to get it in front of SCOTUS as quickly as possible. There is the letter of the law versus the intent of the law.

 

[Faun]

Of course there was a ruling. It was unanimous. The appellates filed a claim against the Attorney General to force him to reopen their immigration case, where the last standing was to deport them. They managed to get their case presented before the Supreme Court, who ruled 9-0, the Attorney General has the the power to deny a motion to reopen for discretionary reasons.

But in their ruling, they maintained the long standing accordance that children born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens.

So, maybe I'm just not seeing it. I read the entire article twice and downloaded the pdf report and in all of that, I could only ever see where the case was brought to the court of appeals and the bureau of immigration appeals. I've not seen anything where it was argued in the supreme court, and haven't seen anything about the 9-0 decision of the supreme court.

Could you link the article of where it says the SC argued this case?

INS v. Rios-Pineda: The Authority of the Attorney General to Deny Motions to Reopen | myattorneyusa

So, I went have time to read the article in full until later, from skimming through it, it appears that the SC only made a decision on whether or not to allow BIA to reopen the case. It doesn't appear they argued anything in regards to the child being a citizen or the interpretation of the 14th amendment.

I didn’t say the parents argued their child is a U.S. citizen. I said the Supreme Court recognized that in their ruling — which you didn’t even think existed.

INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

Respondents husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, were smuggled illegally into the United States in 1974. Respondent husband was apprehended in 1978, and, although at his request he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation, he refused to leave as promised. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen.​

But that was a quote from the appeals court, not the supreme court.

Here’s the ruling from the appellate court...

720 F2d 529 Rios-Pineda v. United States Department of Justice Immigration & Naturalization Service | OpenJurist

The quote I posted was from the Supreme Court.

 

[tinydancer]

So, maybe I'm just not seeing it. I read the entire article twice and downloaded the pdf report and in all of that, I could only ever see where the case was brought to the court of appeals and the bureau of immigration appeals. I've not seen anything where it was argued in the supreme court, and haven't seen anything about the 9-0 decision of the supreme court.

Could you link the article of where it says the SC argued this case?

INS v. Rios-Pineda: The Authority of the Attorney General to Deny Motions to Reopen | myattorneyusa

So, I went have time to read the article in full until later, from skimming through it, it appears that the SC only made a decision on whether or not to allow BIA to reopen the case. It doesn't appear they argued anything in regards to the child being a citizen or the interpretation of the 14th amendment.

I didn’t say the parents argued their child is a U.S. citizen. I said the Supreme Court recognized that in their ruling — which you didn’t even think existed.

INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

Respondents husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, were smuggled illegally into the United States in 1974. Respondent husband was apprehended in 1978, and, although at his request he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation, he refused to leave as promised. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen.​

But that was a quote from the appeals court, not the supreme court.

Here’s the ruling from the appellate court...

720 F2d 529 Rios-Pineda v. United States Department of Justice Immigration & Naturalization Service | OpenJurist

The quote I posted was from the Supreme Court.

Oh sweet Jesus give it up. Doesnt fly

 

[Wayne Adams]

Can you please link this supreme court case? I'd like to see where the SC has ruled on this. If this is the case, and the SC did actually already interpret that children born to illegals withing the borders of the United states, then this issue is settled and no need to go further with it.

INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

Respondents husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, were smuggled illegally into the United States in 1974. Respondent husband was apprehended in 1978, and, although at his request he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation, he refused to leave as promised. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen.

That’s not the whole case, and it operates with the a priori assumption that birthright citizenship applies as long in the US no matter what. The actual issue has not been hashed out by SCOTUS or any other court. This is what I said in my post. Not a case of birthright citizenship being hashed out, this was a case in which an illegal immigrant had a child in the US, they claimed it was extreme hardship to suspend deportation. BTW his request for suspension of deportation got DENIED. Again not a case involving birthright citizenship at all, it was a deportation case.

So? The highest court in the land acknowledged the 14th Amendment designates babies born in the U.S. of illegal immigrants are U.S. citizens.

You have the correct interpretation - born here = citizen

Can the Child of an Undocumented Immigrant Become a U.S. Citizen?

This is the a priori assumption that would be argued in the courts. We’ve already seen a case of legal immigrants who had a kid in the US, went back to China, and had that birthright citizenship argued all the way to the supreme Supreme Court. Not at all outside of realm to have birthright citizenship of illegal immigrants argued in front of the Supreme Court, that’s actually an easier case to make. This has been the point of the debate for some time now. We all are aware of the a priori assumption, stop pointing to it, it is a no shit statement.

The point has been litigated. If you're born here, you are a citizen:

The myth of the ‘anchor baby’ deportation defense

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...-you-should-know-about-birthright-citizenship

 

[Wayne Adams]

No rational person believes in illegal anchor baby citizenship you fools are going to lose.

The state to watch to make that determination is in Georgia. There, the democrat, Stacey Abrams, wants undocumented immigrants to have the privilege of voting. Oprah Winfrey is campaigning on her behalf as is Robert DeNiro. Abrams is also anti-gun. The polls are saying it is a dead heat. Somebody out there is for the undocumented taking over. See how far left is willing to go with this:

Dem Donor Network Wants Reparations On Agenda By 2022

Kemp, Abrams have opposing views on undocumented immigrants, HOPE Scholarship

Stacey Abrams: Her Official Anti-Gun Record (Read It) – Georgia Gun Owners

The mayor of Atlanta no longer keeps undocumented foreigners in jail. If Abrams wins, Georgia becomes a sanctuary state. Watch the election. Arizona may not be far behind. The polls say you're wrong, but if Kemp grabs like 53 percent of the vote and wins in spite of the millions Hollywood is pouring into Georgia, I'd be glad to buy you lunch, shake your hand, and admit that you were more in touch with the masses than I am. Personally, I'm scared, but am hopeful the media is FOS and Kemp gets at least 53 percent of the vote.

I play long ball, I know that eventually the country will become furious over illegals and these politicians will shit themselves.

The right has had control over this issue for fifteen plus years. They yet to get any significant portion of their solutions put into law and have repeatedly gotten shot down in the SCOTUS.

Every week that goes by means there are more liberals than conservatives and you don't have any appreciable number of constitutionalists. I have to disagree with you on this. Sorry.

I think you meant Dem's and traitor RINO's like the Bush's and Kasich.

Oh, Please, stop with the Rino crap. That would mean that MOST Republicans would be Rinos if judged by the same scale. You are definitely a minority in the Republican Party being that you are actually a John Birch Society Plant. But that will be corrected in time.

The fact remains that the Reps have had control and it still has not been addressed. The 14th amendment should have been edited decades ago. Just how many women would stop coming here to have their children if they knew that their child that was born in the US would be deported along with her? That would stop an entire class of Illegal Immigrants. While I loath Trump (when I see him posturing, I see a little Italian from long ago) we DO need to get it in front of SCOTUS as quickly as possible. There is the letter of the law versus the intent of the law.

I was led to believe that the John Birch Society had adopted the standard anti immigrant, right wing, Tea Party Republican, White Nationalist - or however you characterize your position.

When the matter goes to the SCOTUS and you predictably lose, I'll expect you to man up and admit you were wrong.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So, maybe I'm just not seeing it. I read the entire article twice and downloaded the pdf report and in all of that, I could only ever see where the case was brought to the court of appeals and the bureau of immigration appeals. I've not seen anything where it was argued in the supreme court, and haven't seen anything about the 9-0 decision of the supreme court.

Could you link the article of where it says the SC argued this case?

INS v. Rios-Pineda: The Authority of the Attorney General to Deny Motions to Reopen | myattorneyusa

So, I went have time to read the article in full until later, from skimming through it, it appears that the SC only made a decision on whether or not to allow BIA to reopen the case. It doesn't appear they argued anything in regards to the child being a citizen or the interpretation of the 14th amendment.

I didn’t say the parents argued their child is a U.S. citizen. I said the Supreme Court recognized that in their ruling — which you didn’t even think existed.

INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

Respondents husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, were smuggled illegally into the United States in 1974. Respondent husband was apprehended in 1978, and, although at his request he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation, he refused to leave as promised. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen.​

But that was a quote from the appeals court, not the supreme court.

Here’s the ruling from the appellate court...

720 F2d 529 Rios-Pineda v. United States Department of Justice Immigration & Naturalization Service | OpenJurist

The quote I posted was from the Supreme Court.

I see what it says now, and yes, it is as you say.

However, it still needs to be argued and defined. The framers of the 14th have written that the amendment was not to be used in the capacity in which it has been used.

If not, then, yes, all children of illegal aliens must be considered citizens.

 

[sakinago]

INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

Respondents husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, were smuggled illegally into the United States in 1974. Respondent husband was apprehended in 1978, and, although at his request he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation, he refused to leave as promised. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen.

That’s not the whole case, and it operates with the a priori assumption that birthright citizenship applies as long in the US no matter what. The actual issue has not been hashed out by SCOTUS or any other court. This is what I said in my post. Not a case of birthright citizenship being hashed out, this was a case in which an illegal immigrant had a child in the US, they claimed it was extreme hardship to suspend deportation. BTW his request for suspension of deportation got DENIED. Again not a case involving birthright citizenship at all, it was a deportation case.

So? The highest court in the land acknowledged the 14th Amendment designates babies born in the U.S. of illegal immigrants are U.S. citizens.

You have the correct interpretation - born here = citizen

Can the Child of an Undocumented Immigrant Become a U.S. Citizen?

This is the a priori assumption that would be argued in the courts. We’ve already seen a case of legal immigrants who had a kid in the US, went back to China, and had that birthright citizenship argued all the way to the supreme Supreme Court. Not at all outside of realm to have birthright citizenship of illegal immigrants argued in front of the Supreme Court, that’s actually an easier case to make. This has been the point of the debate for some time now. We all are aware of the a priori assumption, stop pointing to it, it is a no shit statement.

The point has been litigated. If you're born here, you are a citizen:

The myth of the ‘anchor baby’ deportation defense

3 Things You Should Know About Birthright Citizenship

Do you read your own articles? The first is about the practicality of the anchor baby as a strategy to stay in the US. The second just proves my point of the murkiness in jurisdiction, and gives its own take on the Wong Kim ark case, and fails to mention “oh, btw, Arks parents were in the country LEGALLY, which was the reason why it was determined that they fell under jurisdiction.

 

[Wayne Adams]

That’s not the whole case, and it operates with the a priori assumption that birthright citizenship applies as long in the US no matter what. The actual issue has not been hashed out by SCOTUS or any other court. This is what I said in my post. Not a case of birthright citizenship being hashed out, this was a case in which an illegal immigrant had a child in the US, they claimed it was extreme hardship to suspend deportation. BTW his request for suspension of deportation got DENIED. Again not a case involving birthright citizenship at all, it was a deportation case.

So? The highest court in the land acknowledged the 14th Amendment designates babies born in the U.S. of illegal immigrants are U.S. citizens.

You have the correct interpretation - born here = citizen

Can the Child of an Undocumented Immigrant Become a U.S. Citizen?

This is the a priori assumption that would be argued in the courts. We’ve already seen a case of legal immigrants who had a kid in the US, went back to China, and had that birthright citizenship argued all the way to the supreme Supreme Court. Not at all outside of realm to have birthright citizenship of illegal immigrants argued in front of the Supreme Court, that’s actually an easier case to make. This has been the point of the debate for some time now. We all are aware of the a priori assumption, stop pointing to it, it is a no shit statement.

The point has been litigated. If you're born here, you are a citizen:

The myth of the ‘anchor baby’ deportation defense

3 Things You Should Know About Birthright Citizenship

Do you read your own articles? The first is about the practicality of the anchor baby as a strategy to stay in the US. The second just proves my point of the murkiness in jurisdiction, and gives its own take on the Wong Kim ark case, and fails to mention “oh, btw, Arks parents were in the country LEGALLY, which was the reason why it was determined that they fell under jurisdiction.

The problem you're having is in establishing what is relevant history and relevant rulings contrasted with dicta. Dicta is not even persuasive authority.

Here are the relevant quotes from the first article:

"But the anchor baby, while potent politically, is a largely mythical idea."
For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant."

Here is the relevant quote from the second link:

"To be clear, it means that current jurisprudence indicates the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants are given citizenship by the 14th Amendment."

I'm not sure what you think was proven, but the bottom line is the bottom line on this subject. If someone were born here, they are a citizen. If someone is not under the jurisdiction of the United States, they are not subject to being deported. Diplomats and foreign forces here at the behest of the government would constitute people here, but not under the jurisdiction of the law.

 

[Paul Motter]

As a conservative I think a chance for the Supreme Court to revisit the 14th amendment is long overdue. It has been operating under the guise of "settled law" solely because some lower court schmuck said it did not appear to exclude people who were the children of non-citizens. In fact, he wrote in dictum that it did not specify either way.

I believe the Supreme Court justices we have now are honest and fair enough to rule what they believe the original framers intended for the amendment. In fact, I feel it is clear enough that even the old Supreme Court would have ruled against anchor babies. The thing is this - it takes an "outside the swamp" thinker like Trump to realize the obvious - that this amendment needs to be defined more clearly.

It doesn't matter how you get there, whether it referred from a lower court lawsuit by some liberal crank or a Presidential Executive Order. The important thing is that it gets done.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This needs an Amendment to overturn.........so.........I'm not buying it.............

Have no problem if we want to go for a miracle and try to end it...........

I thought that true also, until I researched the arguments for passing the 14th Amendment in the 1860s. It was specifically written to exclude anchor babies according to one of the authors.

 

[sakinago]

So? The highest court in the land acknowledged the 14th Amendment designates babies born in the U.S. of illegal immigrants are U.S. citizens.

You have the correct interpretation - born here = citizen

Can the Child of an Undocumented Immigrant Become a U.S. Citizen?

This is the a priori assumption that would be argued in the courts. We’ve already seen a case of legal immigrants who had a kid in the US, went back to China, and had that birthright citizenship argued all the way to the supreme Supreme Court. Not at all outside of realm to have birthright citizenship of illegal immigrants argued in front of the Supreme Court, that’s actually an easier case to make. This has been the point of the debate for some time now. We all are aware of the a priori assumption, stop pointing to it, it is a no shit statement.

The point has been litigated. If you're born here, you are a citizen:

The myth of the ‘anchor baby’ deportation defense

3 Things You Should Know About Birthright Citizenship

Do you read your own articles? The first is about the practicality of the anchor baby as a strategy to stay in the US. The second just proves my point of the murkiness in jurisdiction, and gives its own take on the Wong Kim ark case, and fails to mention “oh, btw, Arks parents were in the country LEGALLY, which was the reason why it was determined that they fell under jurisdiction.

The problem you're having is in establishing what is relevant history and relevant rulings contrasted with dicta. Dicta is not even persuasive authority.

Here are the relevant quotes from the first article:

"But the anchor baby, while potent politically, is a largely mythical idea."
For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant."

Here is the relevant quote from the second link:

"To be clear, it means that current jurisprudence indicates the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants are given citizenship by the 14th Amendment."

I'm not sure what you think was proven, but the bottom line is the bottom line on this subject. If someone were born here, they are a citizen. If someone is not under the jurisdiction of the United States, they are not subject to being deported. Diplomats and foreign forces here at the behest of the government would constitute people here, but not under the jurisdiction of the law.

Nothing has been proven, that’s how it’s been practiced. That practice is coming under question with different circumstances than in the Ark case. This absolutely can be brought to the Supreme Court, because figuring out how to constitutionally apply the law with different circumstances (as in the Ark case) is exactly what the Supreme Court does. I read both your articles, I wasn’t confused by them. To say the Supreme Court cannot review this is flat out wrong, and wishful thinking mixed with some confirmation bias. The question to be answered yet is do illegal immigrants fall under US jurisdiction. I think there is a fairly strong case to be made that they do not.