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

[Ringtone]

Because anyone in the US for any reason is under US law.. meaning US Jurisdiction.

False! More confusion.

There is more than one construct of U.S. jurisdiction, including the territorial jurisdiction of military occupation, the jurisdiction of incorporated and unincorporated territories, diplomatic jurisdiction, and jurisdiction for the constitutional purposes of citizenship and nationality.

 

[Ringtone]

US citizenship law is pretty basic stuff unless you're stupid.

LOL!

U.S. citizenship and naturality law is a staggeringly complex labyrinth of natural, statutory, and case law, and most of you haven't the first clue.

 

[bodecea]

So the 14th Amendment isn't about the citizenship rights of former slaves. There you have it, folks. Right from otto105.

Interesting how you try to twist things. The 14th Amendment isn't JUST about the citizenship rights of former slaves. There you have it, folks.

 

[BackAgain]

A JD is not required to serve on the USSC.

True dat.

 

[BackAgain]

US citizenship law is pretty basic stuff unless you're stupid.

No. Actually. It isn’t. I don’t know if you are smart. But I know you are wrong insofar as you claim that it’s basic stuff.

 

[Ringtone]

That's because anyone in our country legally or not is subject to our laws.

You wrote the above in reaction to my observation:

Actually, SCOTUS has never directly addressed the question of whether or not a person born of illegal aliens within the territorial boundaries of the United States is subject to the jurisdiction thereof for the constitutional purposes of U.S. citizenship. Wong Kim Ark's parents were foreign nationals, howbeit, legally residing in the United States at the time of his birth.​

Your reaction, including that of those who gave your non sequitur a thumbs up, speaks volumes of the flat-out ignorance on this thread. Your statement is operationally meaningless and you haven't the first clue what I'm getting at.

From what I've seen so far, BS Filter and I are the only ones who understand the fundamentals of the matter.

 

[BackAgain]

Interesting how you try to twist things. The 14th Amendment isn't JUST about the citizenship rights of former slaves. There you have it, folks.

Boredtoseeya’s interjection of the word “just” is wrong. It may have been resorted to in order to attend to other issues, from time to time. But it was unquestionably created and adopted to address the pressing question about the citizenship of former slaves. It also denies to the various States the authority to do anything about that matter.

 

[BackAgain]

Boredtoseeya’s interjection of the word “just” is wrong. It may have been resorted to in order to attend to other issues, from time to time. But it was unquestionably created and adopted to address the pressing question about the citizenship of former slaves. It also denies to the various States the authority to do anything about that matter.

Boredtoseeya’s latest downvote suggests that she disagrees with the above. Meh. Ok. Her disagreement remains irrelevant. The statements are either true or not. An opinion that one disagrees is not an argument or anything much of value. (She does enjoy stalking me,?I suppose.)

So, if boredtoseeya were honest, maybe should could address the questions more directly and attempt to refute the claim that the original purpose of the 14th Amendment wa to address the issue of the former slaves. And, if she is grunting out that the amendment wasn’t also designed to prevent the states from having a say in that, maybe she could step up and defend her position on that, too.

lol. She won’t of course.

 

[BS Filter]

Interesting how you try to twist things. The 14th Amendment isn't JUST about the citizenship rights of former slaves. There you have it, folks.

Otto said it has nothing to do with former slaves. Go argue with him.

 

[surada]

No. Actually. It isn’t. I don’t know if you are smart. But I know you are wrong insofar as you claim that it’s basic stuff.

You aren't even smart enough to be embarrassed.

 

[Indeependent]

You aren't even smart enough to be embarrassed.

If your historical revisionism hasn't convinced us of your dementia, I don't know what will.

 

[surada]

If your historical revisionism hasn't convinced us of your dementia, I don't know what will.

Call your local law school or a lawyer.. You are being stupid.

 

[surada]

You wrote the above in reaction to my observation:

Actually, SCOTUS has never directly addressed the question of whether or not a person born of illegal aliens within the territorial boundaries of the United States is subject to the jurisdiction thereof for the constitutional purposes of U.S. citizenship. Wong Kim Ark's parents were foreign nationals, howbeit, legally residing in the United States at the time of his birth.​

Your reaction, including that of those who gave your non sequitur a thumbs up, speaks volumes of the flat-out ignorance on this thread. Your statement is operationally meaningless and you haven't the first clue what I'm getting at.

From what I've seen so far, BS Filter and I are the only ones who understand the fundamentals of the matter.

You idiot... Everyone on US soil is subject to US jurisdiction .. Who's laws do you think supercede US law in the US?

 

[Indeependent]

Call your local law school or a lawyer.. You are being stupid.

I haven't done any research on the USC and every lawyer I know says he'll get back to me.
You keep pretending you know everything off the cuff.

 

[otto105]

Nothing wrong with being a paralegal.

but that’s not really the point. You make statements in the form of definitive conclusions. You begin to support your view but, when pushed, you have an annoying tendency to simply reiterate your conclusion AS a premise.

I tell you again: whether or not the 14th Amendment actually supports the “anchor baby” contention that the mere happenstance of being born on US soil automatically confers a person with US citizenship is the question. It is not the answer.

Despite your fervent belief, that question has yet to be definitively answered.

Yes, it has.

You QOP conservatives are again trying to change long, long standing prescient.

 

[otto105]

You wrote the above in reaction to my observation:

Actually, SCOTUS has never directly addressed the question of whether or not a person born of illegal aliens within the territorial boundaries of the United States is subject to the jurisdiction thereof for the constitutional purposes of U.S. citizenship. Wong Kim Ark's parents were foreign nationals, howbeit, legally residing in the United States at the time of his birth.​

Your reaction, including that of those who gave your non sequitur a thumbs up, speaks volumes of the flat-out ignorance on this thread. Your statement is operationally meaningless and you haven't the first clue what I'm getting at.

From what I've seen so far, BS Filter and I are the only ones who understand the fundamentals of the matter.

No, you’re the only ones pushing an anti-immigrant screed.

Any reading of the amendment is clear on the born right subject.

 

[otto105]

Otto said it has nothing to do with former slaves. Go argue with him.

I stand by my previous posts and laugh at bs for twisting in the wind.

 

[BS Filter]

I stand by my previous posts and laugh at bs for twisting in the wind.

Not surprised that you don't know the history of the Constitution. However, bragging about being supremely stupid is kinda sad.

 

[otto105]

Not surprised that you don't know the history of the Constitution. However, bragging about being supremely stupid is kinda sad.

Again, I stand by my posts and laugh at your juvenile attempts at goal post moving.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So the 14th Amendment isn't about the citizenship rights of former slaves. There you have it, folks. Right from otto105.

Wrong.

The 14th Amendment codifies the citizenship of all persons born in the United States and recognizes the rights of citizens who reside in the states and local jurisdictions:

‘The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, has generated more lawsuits than any other provision of the U.S. Constitution. Section 1 of the amendment has been the centerpiece of most of this litigation. It makes "All persons born or naturalized in the United States"citizens of the United States and citizens of the state in which they reside. This section also prohibits state governments from denying persons within their jurisdiction the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizenship, and guarantees to every such person due process and equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court has ruled that any state law that abridges Freedom of Speech, freedom of religion, the right to trial by jury, the Right to Counsel, the right against Self-Incrimination, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the right against cruel and unusual punishments will be invalidated under section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This holding is called the Incorporation Doctrine.’

Fourteenth Amendment

Definition of Fourteenth Amendment in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com