Is there a politician with the balls to lobby for a rewrite of the 14th / the anchor baby statute?

[BrokeLoser]

Quite obviously, the 14th Amendment was a response to the loser south after the Civil War. Which is why the the alt-white hates it.

Holy shit, I’m finally going to agree with a Super Tard….True, the 14th applies to the children of once enslaved African citizens…The whole reason for section 1 of the 14th.

 

[surada]

Holy shit, I’m finally going to agree with a Super Tard….True, the 14th applies to the children of once enslaved African citizens…The whole reason for section 1 of the 14th.

You just took a giant step backwards into ignorance.

 

[Ringtone]

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'm steeped in the pertinent constitutional, statutory, and case law, as well as in the history of original constitutional intent regarding the construct of natural-born citizenship vis-à-vis Roman law and British Common Law. I'm telling you that Wong Kim Ark was wrongfully decided by an activist Court with an agenda! Natural-born citizenship and birthright citizenship are not the same things. The former goes to original intent, the latter, strictly derives from the British common-law principle of jus soli, which the renegade Court of 1898 imposed on the Jurisdiction Clause of the 14th out of nowhere.

The 14th was ratified in 1868. Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898, thirty years later. Do the math. The Wong Kim Ark decision is horseshit. Before that decision, it was understood by Congress and the State Department that persons born of parents who were not U.S. citizens WERE NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and, therefore, were not U.S. citizens at birth. To be a natural-born citizen of the United States per original intent was to be duly born of both the blood and the soil of the nation.

The clause reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.​

Relative to the construct of natural-born citizenship, the children of all foreign nationals were NOT citizens at birth. The idiotic decision of Wong Kim Ark rendered original intent meaningless and foisted anchor babies on the body politic in violation of the social contract.

Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

 

[surada]

I'm steeped in the pertinent constitutional, statutory, and case law, as well as in the history of original constitutional intent regarding the construct of natural-born citizenship vis-à-vis Roman law and British Common Law. I'm telling you that Wong Kim Ark was wrongfully decided by an activist Court with an agenda! Natural-born citizenship and birthright citizenship are not the same things. The former goes to original intent, the latter, strictly derives from British common-law principle of jus soli, which the renegade Court of 1898 imposed on the Jurisdiction Clause of the 14th out of nowhere.

The 14th was ratified in 1868. Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898, thirty years later. Do the math. The Wong Kim Ark decision is horseshit. Before that decision, it was understood by Congress and the State Department that persons born of parents who were not U.S. citizens WERE NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and, therefore, were not U.S. citizens at birth. To be a natural-born citizen of the United States per original intent was to be duly born of both the blood and the soil of the nation.

The clause reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.​

Relative to the construct of natural-born citizenship, the children of all foreign nationals were NOT citizens at birth. The idiotic decision of Wong Kim Ark rendered original intent meaningless and foisted anchor babies on the body politic in violation of the social contract.

<i><b><center>Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles</center></b></i>

michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com

If they were born on US soil they were subject to US jurisdiction.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I'm a grandmother.

You just took a giant step backwards into ignorance.

And he would still have to take about a million more of those giant steps to lower himself to anywhere near your level of ignorance and self destruction.

 

[BS Filter]

That's Bullshit commentary not the law. Understand the law and you won't be duped by huxters.

Life is hard, huh

 

[BrokeLoser]

If they are on US soil, the US has jurisdiction.

Amendment XIV​

Section 1.​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Look, SCOTUS has held that section 1 does not apply to children of diplomats, ministers, consuls, or embassy staff. As foreign nationals in the U.S. on the business of their governments, the parents and children owe their allegiance to their home country. They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Illegal alien parents of an anchor baby are no more subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. than the diplomat, since the U.S. would deport them back to their own country rather than exert legal jurisdiction over them, and the children should have the same status as the parents despite their birth on U.S. soil.

This is just good old fashion common sense.

 

[Ringtone]

If they were born on US soil they were subject to US jurisdiction.

Not prior to the bogus Wong Kim Ark decision they weren't. Fact!

 

[surada]

Not prior to the bogus Wong Kim Ark decision they weren't. Fact!

Read the decision again. Wong Kim Ark tested and clarified the statute.

 

[DBA]

There should be a basic test kids take for citizenship. That would rid us of most future Trump sheep.

Boy, do you have it backwards.

 

[Ringtone]

Excerpt from a piece I wrote recently:

Some Founders, including Jefferson, were dismayed by the adoption of Blackstonian jurisprudence by America’s courts because they feared that constitutionally incompatible precedents in common law would creep into American case law. As things turned out, their fears were overblown, with one huge exception. In the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898, the Supreme Court injudiciously imposed British common law’s principle of birthright citizenship (jus soli) on the Natural-Born Citizen Clause of the Constitution. Except for those effectively grandfathered in as such with the ratification of the Constitution, Congress and the State Department had always held, and rightly so, that only those born of both the soil and the blood of the nation were natural-born citizens. Since Wong Kim Ark, persons born on U.S. soil, whether their parents be U.S. citizens or not, are granted natural-born citizenship at birth, unless, of course, their parents be in the U.S. as official representatives of a foreign state.​

​

Neither the Court nor Congress has stipulated that the parents of such persons must at the very least be legal (or documented) residents. The result? The several states have had no other recourse but to recognize the children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil as natural-born citizens. The fact of this incoherency accentuates jus soli’s incompatibility vis-à-vis original intent. The Court’s decision rendered the constitutional principle of natural-born citizenship meaningless.​

​

Behold another disaster of judicial activism, namely, anchor babies.​

 

[Ringtone]

Read the decision again. Wong Kim Ark tested and clarified the statute.

I know what the MAJORITY did in Wong Kim Ark. The decision was bullshit. For common sense and the constitutionally right decision, you need to read the dissent! And the Court did not address a mere statute but a duly ratified amendment to the Consitution, namely, the 14th, to the tune of an interpretation that did not exist in understanding or in practice after the ratification of the 14th. Rather, the Court mysteriously discovered its interpretation thirty years later.

LOL!

The Court may have fooled you, but it didn't fool me.

 

[surada]

I know what the MAJORITY did in Wong Kim Ark. The decision was bullshit. For common sense and the constitutionally right decision, you need to read the dissent! And the Court did not address a mere statute, but a duly ratified amendment to the Consitution, namely, the 14th, to the tune of an interpretation that did not exist in understanding or in practice after the ratification of the 14th. Rather, the Court mysteriously discovered its interpretation thirty years later.

LOL!

The Court may have fooled you, but it didn't fool me.

So you disagreed with the decision.. Do you have a JD?

 

[bodecea]

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

Where did you get your Con-stitutional law degree?

 

[BrokeLoser]

So you disagreed with the decision.. Do you have a JD

Sane, good, real core Americans don’t need a law degree to know that our founders worked for the people of the United States…not for the people of Mexico.

 

[Correll]

Amendment XIV​

Section 1.​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Look, SCOTUS has held that section 1 does not apply to children of diplomats, ministers, consuls, or embassy staff. As foreign nationals in the U.S. on the business of their governments, the parents and children owe their allegiance to their home country. They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Illegal alien parents of an anchor baby are no more subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. than the diplomat, since the U.S. would deport them back to their own country rather than exert legal jurisdiction over them, and the children should have the same status as the parents despite their birth on U.S. soil.

This is just good old fashion common sense.

Indeed, one could argue they are LESS subject to our laws, as the diplomats are known and permitted to be here physically, while the illegals are in hiding, for fear of being deported immediately upon being discovered.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Indeed, one could argue they are LESS subject to our laws, as the diplomats are known and permitted to be here physically, while the illegals are in hiding, for fear of being deported immediately upon being discovered.

Bingo

 

[Correll]

So you disagreed with the decision.. Do you have a JD?

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

 

[bodecea]

Holy shit, I’m finally going to agree with a Super Tard….True, the 14th applies to the children of once enslaved African citizens…The whole reason for section 1 of the 14th.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[bodecea]

Boy, do you have it backwards.

Just goes to show you'd fail.