Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Right, the assumption being these “classes of persons” belong to native born, naturalized American parents or African slaves.If you read the Congressional Record (Wayback Machine) of the debate over citizenship at the time, the author of the amendment states quite plainly that birthright does not attach to children born to diplomats and that it does apply to "every other class of persons".
That was the AUTHOR of the amendment. "Every other class of persons".
Birthright citizenship was the original intent as explained by the author of the amendment. Every class of person born in the US, with the exception of those born to ambassadors, are citizens.Birthright Citizenship was foisted on the Constitution in the Wong Kim Ark decision. An amendment is needed to reinstate original intent.
Nope.Right, the assumption being these “classes of persons” belong to native born, naturalized American parents or African slaves.
The intent of the 14th was not to establish birthright citizenship. The construct of birthright citizenship was imposed on the 14th by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark, 1898.If you read the Congressional Record (Wayback Machine) of the debate over citizenship at the time, the author of the amendment states quite plainly that birthright does not attach to children born to diplomats and that it does apply to "every other class of persons".
That was the AUTHOR of the amendment. "Every other class of persons".
You would have to change the Amendment (I think). I am ok either way.
Birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.Birthright Citizenship was foisted on the Constitution in the Wong Kim Ark decision. An amendment is needed to reinstate original intent.
It most certainly was.The intent of the 14th was not to establish birthright citizenship.
I did half bean…the congressional record means fuck all…the wording in the actual amendment is what matters. You are interpreting the amendment itself like any ignorant globalist Leftist would.Nope.
Read the Congressional Record I provided, fool.
Birthright citizenship for children of ex slaves. That was the original intent.Birthright citizenship was the original intent as explained by the author of the amendment. Every class of person born in the US, with the exception of those born to ambassadors, are citizens.
No if, ands, or buts.
UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK.
www.law.cornell.edu
Read that. It explains the origin of what being under the jurisdiction of the United States means. It's roots are from English law.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said: 'By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England.
'Natural-born British subject' means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.' 'Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.
I am interpreting nothing. I am simply using the exact same words as the author of that amendment. No interpretation needed.I did half bean…the congressional record means fuck all…the wording in the actual amendment is what matters. You are interpreting the amendment itself like any ignorant globalist Leftist would.
What else in the constitution is written in such a way to fuck Americans and benefit Mexico’s filth?
The 14th Amendment isn't British law.Birthright citizenship was the original intent as explained by the author of the amendment. Every class of person born in the US, with the exception of those born to ambassadors, are citizens.
No if, ands, or buts.
UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK.
Read that. It explains the origin of what being under the jurisdiction of the United States means. It's roots are from English law.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said: 'By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England.
'Natural-born British subject' means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.' 'Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.
What was the INTENT and PURPOSE of the 14th Amendment?I am interpreting nothing. I am simply using the exact same words as the author of that amendment. No interpretation needed.
It is you bigots who are interpreting, and doing so wrongly.
I’ve done this way too many times with you wetback lovers…thank God I finally found this dudes shit.
Read it, piss yourself and then report back.
“Birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.”
Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment
What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...www.heritage.org
Parents have no automatic permission to stay in the country until their child turns 21, you idiot. There is no such thing as an anchor baby, you damn fool.Holy shit, I have to explain the most basic things to you ignorant fucks. Here goes, pay attention.
Guadalupe and Gustavo break into the nation and lay their litter of filth in the laps of taxpaying Americans…they can’t wait for little Esmerelda to turn 21 so they to can become citizens and apply for all the free shit American taxpayers provide.
TA-DA!
I’ll be here all day teaching ignorant fucks whatever they want to learn about. Let me know how else I can help.
The 14th Amendment isn't British law.
We should follow the UK model (at least one parent must be a UK citizen). At least one of the parents must be a US Citizen. Problem solved?The nonsensical 14th has stood misinterpreted long enough...It's time for patriots to demand a good hard look at our founders intent. The entire constitution, every word in it was written by the people for the people....to protect and benefit Americans...How was the 14th twisted into something that does nothing but hurt Americans and the founding principles of all we stand for?
Imagine if we had laws that permitted criminals to rob banks and give the stolen loot to their children while forbidding the banks from recovering the loot or demanding it be returned....Why would we allow illegal foreigners to steal their children the most coveted title the world has ever known...the title of AMERICAN CITIZEN?
It simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
On what basis can such foolishness be supported?
Would you support a politician committed to amending the 14th in favor of Americans...why or why not?
Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment
So the wording “We The People” has nothing to do with citizens and everything to do with anyone standing on U.S. soil…illegal criminals and all huh?Everyone on US soil is under US jurisdiction.. Heritage knows better.. They are playing games with the uneducated.
Hahaha…right, no beaner has been in Mexifornia illegally for 21 years.Parents have no automatic permission to stay in the country until their child turns 21, you idiot. There is no such thing as an anchor baby, you damn fool.
So the wording “We The People” has nothing to do with citizens and everything to do with anyone standing on U.S. soil…illegal criminals and all huh?
Please answer this question…PLEASE,
