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.
Children born to parents under US jurisdiction.....otherwise, children born to naturalized parents will be US citizens at birth. Children born to criminals who owe their allegiance to another country due to their foreign citizenship should not be awarded citizenship. If you're hiding in the shadows and are essentially a fugitive, you shouldn't be allowed the same rights as someone who has come forward and surrendered to authorities.Nope. It is you fools who are trying to redefine citizenship. The original intent has always been all children born under US jurisdiction are US citizens.Obviously the left has changed it's application from it's original intent.I thought right wingers worshipped the unchangable constitution?
Your allegiance argument is false. The children born here to parents visiting on a visa have a US birthright. So it is clear that the "allegiance" exception does not apply to any foreigners except those who are performing an official duty for a foreign government who are accredited by the US government as agents of a foreign government.Children born to parents under US jurisdiction.....otherwise, children born to naturalized parents will be US citizens at birth. Children born to criminals who owe their allegiance to another country due to their foreign citizenship should not be awarded citizenship. If you're hiding in the shadows and are essentially a fugitive, you shouldn't be allowed the same rights as someone who has come forward and surrendered to authorities.Nope. It is you fools who are trying to redefine citizenship. The original intent has always been all children born under US jurisdiction are US citizens.Obviously the left has changed it's application from it's original intent.I thought right wingers worshipped the unchangable constitution?
Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.
Levin doesn't care about the truth, for most on the right it's not about the truth, it's about repeating a lie often enough so it's perceived to be "true."Levin is not telling the truth.Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.
Unlike Obama, Levin is an actual Constitutional lawyer
Levin sounds like Cartman whining to his mother.
well THAT explains a lot...your cultural references are cartoons on tv...brilliant.
I don't care what he "sounds" like...as long as he tells the truth...and he does..he knows there are bitter, angry hyperpartisans listening who want to see if they can catch him.
Why don't you address something he specifically said and refute it....or go watch some more cartoons...whichever is easier
See my previous two posts, and every post I have made in this topic.
Illegal immigrants living in the shadows aren't under anyone's jurisdiction. Nobody knows who they are. If the baby is born while they're living in the shadows they don't fall under 14th Amendment protections. They have to surrender to authorities first before they fall under US jurisdiction. The only reason they don't is because of a fear of deportation....which foils their attempts of giving birth to an anchor-baby.Rotagilla has kindly quoted the Congressional Record I have already quoted several times. In it, Howard makes it blazingly clear that all children born in the US are citizens, and that the only exceptions are the children born to ambassadors and foreign ministers.
When later asked if an exception could also be made for children born to Indians, Howard points out such an exception does not need to be spelled out since Indians are not under US jurisdiction and so the exception would be redundant. Thus, Howard reinforces the point children born under US jurisdiction are citizens.
Illegal immigrants, by definition, are under US jurisdiction. Otherwise they would not be illegal under our laws and could not be arrested or deported.
Therefore, their children born here are born to parents under US jurisdiction. So they are citizens. Ipso facto.
Illegal immigrants living in the shadows aren't under anyone's jurisdiction. Nobody knows who they are.
Levin doesn't care about the truth, for most on the right it's not about the truth, it's about repeating a lie often enough so it's perceived to be "true."Levin is not telling the truth.Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.
Unlike Obama, Levin is an actual Constitutional lawyer
Levin sounds like Cartman whining to his mother.
well THAT explains a lot...your cultural references are cartoons on tv...brilliant.
I don't care what he "sounds" like...as long as he tells the truth...and he does..he knows there are bitter, angry hyperpartisans listening who want to see if they can catch him.
Why don't you address something he specifically said and refute it....or go watch some more cartoons...whichever is easier
See my previous two posts, and every post I have made in this topic.
Thanks, I have seen and reviewed this material. Frankly, I believe it to be totally irrelevant, especially the much touted comment made by Howard, the so called author of the amendment. Obviously he wasn't the only author because the statements he made two years before the amendments passage were not reflected in the finished product that became the 14th Amendment. Unless some historian uncovers and reviews stacks of old letters and documents and tells us differently, for all we know a bunch of Senators might have approached Howard moments after his statement was made and told him his thoughts were not going to be considered and were being rejected. It's all just speculation. All we have is the finished product to review and that definitely shows rejection of Howard's thoughts on the topic.I have provided two legal authorities several times.There has been plenty of time for the recognized Constitutional scholars and experts to examine and analyse Trump's proposal to consider the 14th Amendment and the birthright clause adjustable or interpreted the way Trump needs to make his immigration policy workable. Where are they?
All the reviews I have seen have been by persons without genuine credentials to call themselves constitutional authorities. The one who does have that recognition, Ken Klutkowski, wrote an article for Brietbart that others are distorting. Klutkowski listed reasons why it may be possible to make a challenge that would be strong enough to get in front of a federal court or even SCOTUS. His views are being distorted and used as evidence of the feasibility of Trump's contentions as if they are decided facts, not as points of possible debate in a court.
Perhaps I am missing a review by a known and recognized expert. If anyone knows of one, please provide a link or clue about how to access that review. I am not interested in more reviews by commentators, journalist or bloggers. I am interested in reading a review by someone with experience and recognized as a constitutional authority. Party affiliation does not matter.
Here is the Congressional Record of the sponsor of the 14th Amendment talking about who is and who is not a citizen: http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif
All persons born to parents under US jurisdiction are citizens. He explains only ambassadors and foreign ministers are not under US jurisdiction. He then later adds that American Indians are not under US jurisdiction.
Everyone else is.
Here is United States v. Wong Kim Ark: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship. There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.
When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.
Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.
Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.
The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction. Therefore, as explained by the sponsor of the 14th amendment, their children have birthright citizenship.
The "allegiance to a foreign power" gambit is a red herring which nativists think proves the children born to foreigners are not citizens. However, the fact that we grant citizenship to the children of foreigners here on a visa blows that out of the water. They have misread the law. The "allegiance" exception applies only to ambassadors and foreign ministers.
A foreigner here on a visa plainly does not fall under the "allegiance" exception, and so neither does an illegal immigrant.
The ONLY requirement for birthright is to be born to parents under US jurisdiction. An illegal immigrant, by virtue of being illegal, is intrinsically under US jurisdiction.
The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.Thanks, I have seen and reviewed this material. Frankly, I believe it to be totally irrelevant, especially the much touted comment made by Howard, the so called author of the amendment. Obviously he wasn't the only author because the statements he made two years before the amendments passage were not reflected in the finished product that became the 14th Amendment. Unless some historian uncovers and reviews stacks of old letters and documents and tells us differently, for all we know a bunch of Senators might have approached Howard moments after his statement was made and told him his thoughts were not going to be considered and were being rejected. It's all just speculation. All we have is the finished product to review and that definitely shows rejection of Howard's thoughts on the topic.I have provided two legal authorities several times.There has been plenty of time for the recognized Constitutional scholars and experts to examine and analyse Trump's proposal to consider the 14th Amendment and the birthright clause adjustable or interpreted the way Trump needs to make his immigration policy workable. Where are they?
All the reviews I have seen have been by persons without genuine credentials to call themselves constitutional authorities. The one who does have that recognition, Ken Klutkowski, wrote an article for Brietbart that others are distorting. Klutkowski listed reasons why it may be possible to make a challenge that would be strong enough to get in front of a federal court or even SCOTUS. His views are being distorted and used as evidence of the feasibility of Trump's contentions as if they are decided facts, not as points of possible debate in a court.
Perhaps I am missing a review by a known and recognized expert. If anyone knows of one, please provide a link or clue about how to access that review. I am not interested in more reviews by commentators, journalist or bloggers. I am interested in reading a review by someone with experience and recognized as a constitutional authority. Party affiliation does not matter.
Here is the Congressional Record of the sponsor of the 14th Amendment talking about who is and who is not a citizen: http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif
All persons born to parents under US jurisdiction are citizens. He explains only ambassadors and foreign ministers are not under US jurisdiction. He then later adds that American Indians are not under US jurisdiction.
Everyone else is.
Here is United States v. Wong Kim Ark: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship. There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.
When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.
Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.
Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.
The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction. Therefore, as explained by the sponsor of the 14th amendment, their children have birthright citizenship.
The "allegiance to a foreign power" gambit is a red herring which nativists think proves the children born to foreigners are not citizens. However, the fact that we grant citizenship to the children of foreigners here on a visa blows that out of the water. They have misread the law. The "allegiance" exception applies only to ambassadors and foreign ministers.
A foreigner here on a visa plainly does not fall under the "allegiance" exception, and so neither does an illegal immigrant.
The ONLY requirement for birthright is to be born to parents under US jurisdiction. An illegal immigrant, by virtue of being illegal, is intrinsically under US jurisdiction.
It isn't true, if it is, then there needs to be a change in the law to prohibit people temporarily present in,the country from unilaterally conferring citizenship on their children.When a person crosses into the United States, legally or illegally, they are now under US jurisdiction.
If it is legal to sell crack where they came from, that does not mean they can sell crack here. They are under US jurisdiction.
An illegal immigrant is under US jurisdiction.
For the reasons I have explained a zillion times, any children they give birth to while they are here are automatically US citizens.
It is true. And it isn't unilateral. It's a birthright bestowed by our Constitution.It isn't true, if it is, then there needs to be a change in the law to prohibit people temporarily present in,the country from unilaterally conferring citizenship on their children.When a person crosses into the United States, legally or illegally, they are now under US jurisdiction.
If it is legal to sell crack where they came from, that does not mean they can sell crack here. They are under US jurisdiction.
An illegal immigrant is under US jurisdiction.
For the reasons I have explained a zillion times, any children they give birth to while they are here are automatically US citizens.
)It's also not what the Amendment says. It says AND subject to juisdiction. Otherwise there would be no need for a statement about jurisdiction at all. Or it would have said ARE subject to jurisdiction. Clearly two events confer citizenship. Born in the United States and subject to US jurisdiction.The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.Thanks, I have seen and reviewed this material. Frankly, I believe it to be totally irrelevant, especially the much touted comment made by Howard, the so called author of the amendment. Obviously he wasn't the only author because the statements he made two years before the amendments passage were not reflected in the finished product that became the 14th Amendment. Unless some historian uncovers and reviews stacks of old letters and documents and tells us differently, for all we know a bunch of Senators might have approached Howard moments after his statement was made and told him his thoughts were not going to be considered and were being rejected. It's all just speculation. All we have is the finished product to review and that definitely shows rejection of Howard's thoughts on the topic.I have provided two legal authorities several times.There has been plenty of time for the recognized Constitutional scholars and experts to examine and analyse Trump's proposal to consider the 14th Amendment and the birthright clause adjustable or interpreted the way Trump needs to make his immigration policy workable. Where are they?
All the reviews I have seen have been by persons without genuine credentials to call themselves constitutional authorities. The one who does have that recognition, Ken Klutkowski, wrote an article for Brietbart that others are distorting. Klutkowski listed reasons why it may be possible to make a challenge that would be strong enough to get in front of a federal court or even SCOTUS. His views are being distorted and used as evidence of the feasibility of Trump's contentions as if they are decided facts, not as points of possible debate in a court.
Perhaps I am missing a review by a known and recognized expert. If anyone knows of one, please provide a link or clue about how to access that review. I am not interested in more reviews by commentators, journalist or bloggers. I am interested in reading a review by someone with experience and recognized as a constitutional authority. Party affiliation does not matter.
Here is the Congressional Record of the sponsor of the 14th Amendment talking about who is and who is not a citizen: http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif
All persons born to parents under US jurisdiction are citizens. He explains only ambassadors and foreign ministers are not under US jurisdiction. He then later adds that American Indians are not under US jurisdiction.
Everyone else is.
Here is United States v. Wong Kim Ark: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship. There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.
When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.
Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.
Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.
The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction. Therefore, as explained by the sponsor of the 14th amendment, their children have birthright citizenship.
The "allegiance to a foreign power" gambit is a red herring which nativists think proves the children born to foreigners are not citizens. However, the fact that we grant citizenship to the children of foreigners here on a visa blows that out of the water. They have misread the law. The "allegiance" exception applies only to ambassadors and foreign ministers.
A foreigner here on a visa plainly does not fall under the "allegiance" exception, and so neither does an illegal immigrant.
The ONLY requirement for birthright is to be born to parents under US jurisdiction. An illegal immigrant, by virtue of being illegal, is intrinsically under US jurisdiction.
A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.
Very, very simple.
Rota et al, you have been handed your ass in this tread.
The Constitution and the 14th in particular have been explained to you. The great majority of America sees it that way.
You are not going to change it.
The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.Thanks, I have seen and reviewed this material. Frankly, I believe it to be totally irrelevant, especially the much touted comment made by Howard, the so called author of the amendment. Obviously he wasn't the only author because the statements he made two years before the amendments passage were not reflected in the finished product that became the 14th Amendment. Unless some historian uncovers and reviews stacks of old letters and documents and tells us differently, for all we know a bunch of Senators might have approached Howard moments after his statement was made and told him his thoughts were not going to be considered and were being rejected. It's all just speculation. All we have is the finished product to review and that definitely shows rejection of Howard's thoughts on the topic.I have provided two legal authorities several times.There has been plenty of time for the recognized Constitutional scholars and experts to examine and analyse Trump's proposal to consider the 14th Amendment and the birthright clause adjustable or interpreted the way Trump needs to make his immigration policy workable. Where are they?
All the reviews I have seen have been by persons without genuine credentials to call themselves constitutional authorities. The one who does have that recognition, Ken Klutkowski, wrote an article for Brietbart that others are distorting. Klutkowski listed reasons why it may be possible to make a challenge that would be strong enough to get in front of a federal court or even SCOTUS. His views are being distorted and used as evidence of the feasibility of Trump's contentions as if they are decided facts, not as points of possible debate in a court.
Perhaps I am missing a review by a known and recognized expert. If anyone knows of one, please provide a link or clue about how to access that review. I am not interested in more reviews by commentators, journalist or bloggers. I am interested in reading a review by someone with experience and recognized as a constitutional authority. Party affiliation does not matter.
Here is the Congressional Record of the sponsor of the 14th Amendment talking about who is and who is not a citizen: http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif
All persons born to parents under US jurisdiction are citizens. He explains only ambassadors and foreign ministers are not under US jurisdiction. He then later adds that American Indians are not under US jurisdiction.
Everyone else is.
Here is United States v. Wong Kim Ark: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship. There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.
When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.
Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.
Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.
The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction. Therefore, as explained by the sponsor of the 14th amendment, their children have birthright citizenship.
The "allegiance to a foreign power" gambit is a red herring which nativists think proves the children born to foreigners are not citizens. However, the fact that we grant citizenship to the children of foreigners here on a visa blows that out of the water. They have misread the law. The "allegiance" exception applies only to ambassadors and foreign ministers.
A foreigner here on a visa plainly does not fall under the "allegiance" exception, and so neither does an illegal immigrant.
The ONLY requirement for birthright is to be born to parents under US jurisdiction. An illegal immigrant, by virtue of being illegal, is intrinsically under US jurisdiction.
A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.
Very, very simple.
What does jurisdiction mean to you? Do you think people with diplomatic immunity are under US jurisdiction?It's also not what the Amendment says. It says AND subject to juisdiction. Otherwise there would be no need for a statement about jurisdiction at all. Or it would have said ARE subject to jurisdiction. Clearly two events confer citizenship. Born in the United States and subject to US jurisdiction.The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.Thanks, I have seen and reviewed this material. Frankly, I believe it to be totally irrelevant, especially the much touted comment made by Howard, the so called author of the amendment. Obviously he wasn't the only author because the statements he made two years before the amendments passage were not reflected in the finished product that became the 14th Amendment. Unless some historian uncovers and reviews stacks of old letters and documents and tells us differently, for all we know a bunch of Senators might have approached Howard moments after his statement was made and told him his thoughts were not going to be considered and were being rejected. It's all just speculation. All we have is the finished product to review and that definitely shows rejection of Howard's thoughts on the topic.I have provided two legal authorities several times.There has been plenty of time for the recognized Constitutional scholars and experts to examine and analyse Trump's proposal to consider the 14th Amendment and the birthright clause adjustable or interpreted the way Trump needs to make his immigration policy workable. Where are they?
All the reviews I have seen have been by persons without genuine credentials to call themselves constitutional authorities. The one who does have that recognition, Ken Klutkowski, wrote an article for Brietbart that others are distorting. Klutkowski listed reasons why it may be possible to make a challenge that would be strong enough to get in front of a federal court or even SCOTUS. His views are being distorted and used as evidence of the feasibility of Trump's contentions as if they are decided facts, not as points of possible debate in a court.
Perhaps I am missing a review by a known and recognized expert. If anyone knows of one, please provide a link or clue about how to access that review. I am not interested in more reviews by commentators, journalist or bloggers. I am interested in reading a review by someone with experience and recognized as a constitutional authority. Party affiliation does not matter.
Here is the Congressional Record of the sponsor of the 14th Amendment talking about who is and who is not a citizen: http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif
All persons born to parents under US jurisdiction are citizens. He explains only ambassadors and foreign ministers are not under US jurisdiction. He then later adds that American Indians are not under US jurisdiction.
Everyone else is.
Here is United States v. Wong Kim Ark: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship. There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.
When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.
Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.
Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.
The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction. Therefore, as explained by the sponsor of the 14th amendment, their children have birthright citizenship.
The "allegiance to a foreign power" gambit is a red herring which nativists think proves the children born to foreigners are not citizens. However, the fact that we grant citizenship to the children of foreigners here on a visa blows that out of the water. They have misread the law. The "allegiance" exception applies only to ambassadors and foreign ministers.
A foreigner here on a visa plainly does not fall under the "allegiance" exception, and so neither does an illegal immigrant.
The ONLY requirement for birthright is to be born to parents under US jurisdiction. An illegal immigrant, by virtue of being illegal, is intrinsically under US jurisdiction.
A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.
Very, very simple.
This means more than just obeying US laws. US citizens go to other countries all the time and do not become citizens of that country simply because they obey its laws.
