Mark Levin: Congress can end birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution

[g5000]

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.

I have provided two legal authorities several times.

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.

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.

The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.

A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.

Very, very simple.

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.

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.

I don't think you understand the concept of jurisdiction.

When US citizens go abroad, they are under the jurisdiction of the county they are visiting. When foreigners come here, they are under the jurisdiction of the United States. If they give birth here, their kid is a US citizen.

The reason "and" was used in the sole condition for citizenship is because foreign ambassadors have diplomatic immunity and are not under US jurisdiction. Even though they are physically here, their diplomatic immunity means they are under the jurisdiction of their home country.

 

[g5000]

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.

I have provided two legal authorities several times.

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.

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.

The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.

A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.

Very, very simple.

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.

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.

What does jurisdiction mean to you? Do you think people with diplomatic immunity are under US jurisdiction?

Diplomatic immunity, by definition, means they are not under US jurisdiction.

IMMUNITY. Not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws. That's why you hear New Yorkers complain about UN ambassadors double parking and getting away with it.

They are under the jurisdiction of the government they are serving, as is their embassy.

 

[Camp]

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.

I have provided two legal authorities several times.

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.

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.

The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.

A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.

Very, very simple.

incorrect...it IS very simple when you look at it objectively without trying to play hyperpartisan amateur lawyer engaging in semantic distortions.

Explain the benefits of allowing anyone who wants to wander across our border stay here?
90 million out of work..more really...
45 million on food stamps
we don't need unskilled 3rd world peasants to support..it's over..those days are done..people are waking up...and it scares you liberals...it's so obvious...comical watching you guys scuttle around trying to be relevant...do carry on!

People who can list and talk about problems are a dime a dozen. Maybe cheaper and more common than dimes. A major scam perpetrated by politicians like Trump is that they can recite these problems and rile up the crowd. They convince you that they understand how to resolve the problems. What they rarely do is actually explain how the problems will be resolved. That is what you are mimicking. Every time it is shown that Trump's ideas are unworkable you go into a tirade of reminding us what the problems are. Everyone knows what the problems are and everyone wants to see them resolved. Most of us don't need Trump or his supporters sitting on a high horse lecturing about what the problems are.

 

[Rotagilla]

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.

I have provided two legal authorities several times.

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.

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.

The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.

A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.

Very, very simple.

incorrect...it IS very simple when you look at it objectively without trying to play hyperpartisan amateur lawyer engaging in semantic distortions.

Explain the benefits of allowing anyone who wants to wander across our border stay here?
90 million out of work..more really...
45 million on food stamps
we don't need unskilled 3rd world peasants to support..it's over..those days are done..people are waking up...and it scares you liberals...it's so obvious...comical watching you guys scuttle around trying to be relevant...do carry on!

People who can list and talk about problems are a dime a dozen. Maybe cheaper and more common than dimes. A major scam perpetrated by politicians like Trump is that they can recite these problems and rile up the crowd. They convince you that they understand how to resolve the problems. What they rarely do is actually explain how the problems will be resolved. That is what you are mimicking. Every time it is shown that Trump's ideas are unworkable you go into a tirade of reminding us what the problems are. Everyone knows what the problems are and everyone wants to see them resolved. Most of us don't need Trump or his supporters sitting on a high horse lecturing about what the problems are.

you could have saved all that typing and just said

"I'm a liberal and I don't like him because it goes against everything I've been indoctrinated to believe and it scares me"

 

[mudwhistle]

Illegal immigrants living in the shadows aren't under anyone's jurisdiction. Nobody knows who they are.

Then they aren't illegal.

Your argument is foolish. If it were true, a murderer would not be under anyone's jurisdiction if a detective didn't know who killed the victim.

You can't be "illegal" unless you are under a jurisdiction which has declared what is illegal!

Most of the time, a murderer is under some jurisdiction. He was born here, has a birth certificate, and probably went to school here. Illegals are just here living off the grid.....just living here with the help of someone else. Someone who would be in worse trouble than the illegal if they're caught harboring illegals. I think it's 5 years in jail.

 

[Camp]

I have provided two legal authorities several times.

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.

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.

The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.

A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.

Very, very simple.

incorrect...it IS very simple when you look at it objectively without trying to play hyperpartisan amateur lawyer engaging in semantic distortions.

Explain the benefits of allowing anyone who wants to wander across our border stay here?
90 million out of work..more really...
45 million on food stamps
we don't need unskilled 3rd world peasants to support..it's over..those days are done..people are waking up...and it scares you liberals...it's so obvious...comical watching you guys scuttle around trying to be relevant...do carry on!

People who can list and talk about problems are a dime a dozen. Maybe cheaper and more common than dimes. A major scam perpetrated by politicians like Trump is that they can recite these problems and rile up the crowd. They convince you that they understand how to resolve the problems. What they rarely do is actually explain how the problems will be resolved. That is what you are mimicking. Every time it is shown that Trump's ideas are unworkable you go into a tirade of reminding us what the problems are. Everyone knows what the problems are and everyone wants to see them resolved. Most of us don't need Trump or his supporters sitting on a high horse lecturing about what the problems are.

you could have saved all that typing and just said

"I'm a liberal and I don't like him because it goes against everything I've been indoctrinated to believe and it scares me"

It wasn't a lot of typing. Some of us understand the consequences of poorly thought out knee jerk reactions to complicated problems. For example, I'm willing to bet that very few on your side are considering what would and will happen if all those low paid undocumented workers are deported. Who will do the work and how will it affect inflation. Who will replace the cheap labor used in agriculture that keeps our food prices at current levels? How will it affect the cost of construction labor? You think you can deport all those low payed workers with American workers who will require better working conditions and pay and it will not have a affect at the stores, restaurants and other industries that depend on those low paid workers?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

I have provided two legal authorities several times.

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.

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.

The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.

A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.

Very, very simple.

incorrect...it IS very simple when you look at it objectively without trying to play hyperpartisan amateur lawyer engaging in semantic distortions.

Explain the benefits of allowing anyone who wants to wander across our border stay here?
90 million out of work..more really...
45 million on food stamps
we don't need unskilled 3rd world peasants to support..it's over..those days are done..people are waking up...and it scares you liberals...it's so obvious...comical watching you guys scuttle around trying to be relevant...do carry on!

People who can list and talk about problems are a dime a dozen. Maybe cheaper and more common than dimes. A major scam perpetrated by politicians like Trump is that they can recite these problems and rile up the crowd. They convince you that they understand how to resolve the problems. What they rarely do is actually explain how the problems will be resolved. That is what you are mimicking. Every time it is shown that Trump's ideas are unworkable you go into a tirade of reminding us what the problems are. Everyone knows what the problems are and everyone wants to see them resolved. Most of us don't need Trump or his supporters sitting on a high horse lecturing about what the problems are.

Sounds like the Black Lies Matter argument. As a matter of fact, so does income-inequality.

Because you guys are totally closed-minded about this, you can't see a solution. You just want to grant amnesty and go through the cycle repeatedly till we don't even have a country anymore.

There's a reason these people are leaving their countries........it's because they can't run them properly. Yet you want them to come here and repeat the same mistakes here.

These people figured out a loophole in the law.....and because our politicians aren't defending the constitution and defending us from enemies foreign and domestic, this has become a problem.

 

[Rotagilla]

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.

The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.

A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.

Very, very simple.

incorrect...it IS very simple when you look at it objectively without trying to play hyperpartisan amateur lawyer engaging in semantic distortions.

Explain the benefits of allowing anyone who wants to wander across our border stay here?
90 million out of work..more really...
45 million on food stamps
we don't need unskilled 3rd world peasants to support..it's over..those days are done..people are waking up...and it scares you liberals...it's so obvious...comical watching you guys scuttle around trying to be relevant...do carry on!

People who can list and talk about problems are a dime a dozen. Maybe cheaper and more common than dimes. A major scam perpetrated by politicians like Trump is that they can recite these problems and rile up the crowd. They convince you that they understand how to resolve the problems. What they rarely do is actually explain how the problems will be resolved. That is what you are mimicking. Every time it is shown that Trump's ideas are unworkable you go into a tirade of reminding us what the problems are. Everyone knows what the problems are and everyone wants to see them resolved. Most of us don't need Trump or his supporters sitting on a high horse lecturing about what the problems are.

you could have saved all that typing and just said

"I'm a liberal and I don't like him because it goes against everything I've been indoctrinated to believe and it scares me"

It wasn't a lot of typing. Some of us understand the consequences of poorly thought out knee jerk reactions to complicated problems. For example, I'm willing to bet that very few on your side are considering what would and will happen if all those low paid undocumented workers are deported. Who will do the work and how will it affect inflation. Who will replace the cheap labor used in agriculture that keeps our food prices at current levels? How will it affect the cost of construction labor? You think you can deport all those low payed workers with American workers who will require better working conditions and pay and it will not have a affect at the stores, restaurants and other industries that depend on those low paid workers?

Yes..you're right..no one thought of any of that..omg..the nation will collapse if we actually enforce our laws..LMAO..the indoctrination is strong in you.
america will be just fine...better in fact. more jobs, less drag on the system and less crime...what's not to like...

 

[ogibillm]

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.

I have provided two legal authorities several times.

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.

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.

The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.

A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.

Very, very simple.

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.

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.

right, some people in the united states are not subject to our jurisdiction. for instance diplomats.

 

[Rotagilla]

I have provided two legal authorities several times.

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.

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.

The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.

A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.

Very, very simple.

incorrect...it IS very simple when you look at it objectively without trying to play hyperpartisan amateur lawyer engaging in semantic distortions.

Explain the benefits of allowing anyone who wants to wander across our border stay here?
90 million out of work..more really...
45 million on food stamps
we don't need unskilled 3rd world peasants to support..it's over..those days are done..people are waking up...and it scares you liberals...it's so obvious...comical watching you guys scuttle around trying to be relevant...do carry on!

People who can list and talk about problems are a dime a dozen. Maybe cheaper and more common than dimes. A major scam perpetrated by politicians like Trump is that they can recite these problems and rile up the crowd. They convince you that they understand how to resolve the problems. What they rarely do is actually explain how the problems will be resolved. That is what you are mimicking. Every time it is shown that Trump's ideas are unworkable you go into a tirade of reminding us what the problems are. Everyone knows what the problems are and everyone wants to see them resolved. Most of us don't need Trump or his supporters sitting on a high horse lecturing about what the problems are.

Sounds like the Black Lies Matter argument. As a matter of fact, so does income-inequality.

Because you guys are totally closed-minded about this, you can't see a solution. You just want to grant amnesty and go through the cycle repeatedly till we don't even have a country anymore.

There's a reason these people are leaving their countries........it's because they can't run them properly. Yet you want them to come here and repeat the same mistakes here.

These people figured out a loophole in the law.....and because our politicians aren't defending the constitution and defending us from enemies foreign and domestic, this has become a problem.

it's amazing..these liberals are now advocating for drug smugglers and human trafficking to be allowed to continue...where's the COMPASSION?..
..now they're coming out in favor of wage slavery and cheating people out of a fair days pay...
the whole point is to displace and dilute white people because of racial jealousy and envy....they're determined to undermine this country because it is a white majority...
japan is 98% homogenous...no one is saying japan needs to be colonized by other races...no one is saying africa isn't "diverse" enough because there are too many negroes....
but america!..they HATE us because our accomplishments highlight their inferiority and they want to pull us down.

people are waking up now...a day of reckoning approaches.

 

[Rotagilla]

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.

I have provided two legal authorities several times.

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.

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.

The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.

A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.

Very, very simple.

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.

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.

right, some people in the united states are not subject to our jurisdiction. for instance diplomats.

yes?..and?...most 7th graders probably know that fact....

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.

A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.

Very, very simple.

incorrect...it IS very simple when you look at it objectively without trying to play hyperpartisan amateur lawyer engaging in semantic distortions.

Explain the benefits of allowing anyone who wants to wander across our border stay here?
90 million out of work..more really...
45 million on food stamps
we don't need unskilled 3rd world peasants to support..it's over..those days are done..people are waking up...and it scares you liberals...it's so obvious...comical watching you guys scuttle around trying to be relevant...do carry on!

People who can list and talk about problems are a dime a dozen. Maybe cheaper and more common than dimes. A major scam perpetrated by politicians like Trump is that they can recite these problems and rile up the crowd. They convince you that they understand how to resolve the problems. What they rarely do is actually explain how the problems will be resolved. That is what you are mimicking. Every time it is shown that Trump's ideas are unworkable you go into a tirade of reminding us what the problems are. Everyone knows what the problems are and everyone wants to see them resolved. Most of us don't need Trump or his supporters sitting on a high horse lecturing about what the problems are.

you could have saved all that typing and just said

"I'm a liberal and I don't like him because it goes against everything I've been indoctrinated to believe and it scares me"

It wasn't a lot of typing. Some of us understand the consequences of poorly thought out knee jerk reactions to complicated problems. For example, I'm willing to bet that very few on your side are considering what would and will happen if all those low paid undocumented workers are deported. Who will do the work and how will it affect inflation. Who will replace the cheap labor used in agriculture that keeps our food prices at current levels? How will it affect the cost of construction labor? You think you can deport all those low payed workers with American workers who will require better working conditions and pay and it will not have a affect at the stores, restaurants and other industries that depend on those low paid workers?

Don't blame us for this.

Obama set a precedent that has opened Pandora's box.

Every law on the books could be reinterpreted.

Now this could be biting liberals in the ass. You can't change hearts and minds through your ideas.....so maybe we need to do what you do and force it down your pieholes.

 

[Rotagilla]

The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.

A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.

Very, very simple.

incorrect...it IS very simple when you look at it objectively without trying to play hyperpartisan amateur lawyer engaging in semantic distortions.

Explain the benefits of allowing anyone who wants to wander across our border stay here?
90 million out of work..more really...
45 million on food stamps
we don't need unskilled 3rd world peasants to support..it's over..those days are done..people are waking up...and it scares you liberals...it's so obvious...comical watching you guys scuttle around trying to be relevant...do carry on!

People who can list and talk about problems are a dime a dozen. Maybe cheaper and more common than dimes. A major scam perpetrated by politicians like Trump is that they can recite these problems and rile up the crowd. They convince you that they understand how to resolve the problems. What they rarely do is actually explain how the problems will be resolved. That is what you are mimicking. Every time it is shown that Trump's ideas are unworkable you go into a tirade of reminding us what the problems are. Everyone knows what the problems are and everyone wants to see them resolved. Most of us don't need Trump or his supporters sitting on a high horse lecturing about what the problems are.

you could have saved all that typing and just said

"I'm a liberal and I don't like him because it goes against everything I've been indoctrinated to believe and it scares me"

It wasn't a lot of typing. Some of us understand the consequences of poorly thought out knee jerk reactions to complicated problems. For example, I'm willing to bet that very few on your side are considering what would and will happen if all those low paid undocumented workers are deported. Who will do the work and how will it affect inflation. Who will replace the cheap labor used in agriculture that keeps our food prices at current levels? How will it affect the cost of construction labor? You think you can deport all those low payed workers with American workers who will require better working conditions and pay and it will not have a affect at the stores, restaurants and other industries that depend on those low paid workers?

Don't blame us for this.

Obama set a precedent that has opened Pandora's box.

Every law on the books could be reinterpreted.

Now this could be biting liberals in the ass. You can't change hearts and minds through your ideas.....so maybe we need to do what you do and force it down your pieholes.

great post. Well said.

 

[g5000]

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.

I have provided two legal authorities several times.

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.

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.

The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.

A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.

Very, very simple.

incorrect...it IS very simple when you look at it objectively without trying to play hyperpartisan amateur lawyer engaging in semantic distortions.

Explain the benefits of allowing anyone who wants to wander across our border stay here?
90 million out of work..more really...
45 million on food stamps
we don't need unskilled 3rd world peasants to support..it's over..those days are done..people are waking up...and it scares you liberals...it's so obvious...comical watching you guys scuttle around trying to be relevant...do carry on!

Red herring. Your whining has absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of US birthright. It's an admission of defeat on the issue and now you are trying to divert the conversation elsewhere.

 

[g5000]

it's amazing..these liberals are now advocating for drug smugglers and human trafficking to be allowed to continue...where's the COMPASSION?..
..now they're coming out in favor of wage slavery and cheating people out of a fair days pay...
the whole point is to displace and dilute white people because of racial jealousy and envy....they're determined to undermine this country because it is a white majority...
japan is 98% homogenous...no one is saying japan needs to be colonized by other races...no one is saying africa isn't "diverse" enough because there are too many negroes....
but america!..they HATE us because our accomplishments highlight their inferiority and they want to pull us down.

people are waking up now...a day of reckoning approaches.

Wow. Look at all those straw men! You must have an assembly line.

 

[Camp]

The 14th amendment text says anyone born here who is subject to US jurisdiction is a citizen.

A kid born to an illegal immigrant inside our borders is subject to US jurisdiction. That makes them a citizen.

Very, very simple.

incorrect...it IS very simple when you look at it objectively without trying to play hyperpartisan amateur lawyer engaging in semantic distortions.

Explain the benefits of allowing anyone who wants to wander across our border stay here?
90 million out of work..more really...
45 million on food stamps
we don't need unskilled 3rd world peasants to support..it's over..those days are done..people are waking up...and it scares you liberals...it's so obvious...comical watching you guys scuttle around trying to be relevant...do carry on!

People who can list and talk about problems are a dime a dozen. Maybe cheaper and more common than dimes. A major scam perpetrated by politicians like Trump is that they can recite these problems and rile up the crowd. They convince you that they understand how to resolve the problems. What they rarely do is actually explain how the problems will be resolved. That is what you are mimicking. Every time it is shown that Trump's ideas are unworkable you go into a tirade of reminding us what the problems are. Everyone knows what the problems are and everyone wants to see them resolved. Most of us don't need Trump or his supporters sitting on a high horse lecturing about what the problems are.

you could have saved all that typing and just said

"I'm a liberal and I don't like him because it goes against everything I've been indoctrinated to believe and it scares me"

It wasn't a lot of typing. Some of us understand the consequences of poorly thought out knee jerk reactions to complicated problems. For example, I'm willing to bet that very few on your side are considering what would and will happen if all those low paid undocumented workers are deported. Who will do the work and how will it affect inflation. Who will replace the cheap labor used in agriculture that keeps our food prices at current levels? How will it affect the cost of construction labor? You think you can deport all those low payed workers with American workers who will require better working conditions and pay and it will not have a affect at the stores, restaurants and other industries that depend on those low paid workers?

Don't blame us for this.

Obama set a precedent that has opened Pandora's box.

Every law on the books could be reinterpreted.

Now this could be biting liberals in the ass. You can't change hearts and minds through your ideas.....so maybe we need to do what you do and force it down your pieholes.

Reagan and HW Bush led the way into this mess with Reagan's amnesty in '86 and Bush's family reunification in '90. There is plenty of blame to go around. I am in favor of concentration camps for processing illegals deportation and punishment and prison sentences along with bankrupting fines for employers who knowingly hire illegals. In conjunction with those programs would be guest worker program with special provisions for agriculture workers to work for pay comparable to what would be earned in there home country with the addition to housing provided by the employer. That I believe are legally doable with minimal cost and unlike the Trump nonsense that is unworkable.

 

[BULLDOG]

The one case the supreme court considered involved legal aliens, they have never ruled on a case involving criminal aliens. And yes, congress has every right to say illegals do not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the 14th Amendment in our naturalization laws.

That is not their call to make. That's the Supreme's decision.

The last 8 years has taught US that the branches of government, processes, and Constitution can be bypassed in order to achieve a goal. Precedent has been set. Hurts when you are on the other side, doesn't it?
It's you people that need to decide if you want US as a Country to be beholden to process. If not, you are standing in sand when you are trying to make a point about adhering to process and the Constitution.

What? I thought right wingers were all about the constitution. Amazing how quickly you turn traitorous and want to throw it out when you don't get your way.

You people don't like the Constitution because it was written by white slave owners influenced by Jesus.

I'm not the one whining because of what it says.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right here refuses to understand jurisdiction, the Constitution, case law, and statutes. There is no such thing, only citizens with parents who are not. That is not going to change at all.

 

[Rotagilla]

incorrect...it IS very simple when you look at it objectively without trying to play hyperpartisan amateur lawyer engaging in semantic distortions.

Explain the benefits of allowing anyone who wants to wander across our border stay here?
90 million out of work..more really...
45 million on food stamps
we don't need unskilled 3rd world peasants to support..it's over..those days are done..people are waking up...and it scares you liberals...it's so obvious...comical watching you guys scuttle around trying to be relevant...do carry on!

People who can list and talk about problems are a dime a dozen. Maybe cheaper and more common than dimes. A major scam perpetrated by politicians like Trump is that they can recite these problems and rile up the crowd. They convince you that they understand how to resolve the problems. What they rarely do is actually explain how the problems will be resolved. That is what you are mimicking. Every time it is shown that Trump's ideas are unworkable you go into a tirade of reminding us what the problems are. Everyone knows what the problems are and everyone wants to see them resolved. Most of us don't need Trump or his supporters sitting on a high horse lecturing about what the problems are.

you could have saved all that typing and just said

"I'm a liberal and I don't like him because it goes against everything I've been indoctrinated to believe and it scares me"

It wasn't a lot of typing. Some of us understand the consequences of poorly thought out knee jerk reactions to complicated problems. For example, I'm willing to bet that very few on your side are considering what would and will happen if all those low paid undocumented workers are deported. Who will do the work and how will it affect inflation. Who will replace the cheap labor used in agriculture that keeps our food prices at current levels? How will it affect the cost of construction labor? You think you can deport all those low payed workers with American workers who will require better working conditions and pay and it will not have a affect at the stores, restaurants and other industries that depend on those low paid workers?

Don't blame us for this.

Obama set a precedent that has opened Pandora's box.

Every law on the books could be reinterpreted.

Now this could be biting liberals in the ass. You can't change hearts and minds through your ideas.....so maybe we need to do what you do and force it down your pieholes.

Reagan and HW Bush led the way into this mess with Reagan's amnesty in '86 and Bush's family reunification in '90. There is plenty of blame to go around. I am in favor of concentration camps for processing illegals deportation and punishment and prison sentences along with bankrupting fines for employers who knowingly hire illegals. In conjunction with those programs would be guest worker program with special provisions for agriculture workers to work for pay comparable to what would be earned in there home country with the addition to housing provided by the employer. That I believe are legally doable with minimal cost and unlike the Trump nonsense that is unworkable.

Try to keep up...reagan isn't the president now...neither is bush....

I've said it before...because a politician you DON'T like did something wrong in the past, it does NOT set a precedent to allow politicians you DO like to do wrong in the present.

 

[JakeStarkey]

People who can list and talk about problems are a dime a dozen. Maybe cheaper and more common than dimes. A major scam perpetrated by politicians like Trump is that they can recite these problems and rile up the crowd. They convince you that they understand how to resolve the problems. What they rarely do is actually explain how the problems will be resolved. That is what you are mimicking. Every time it is shown that Trump's ideas are unworkable you go into a tirade of reminding us what the problems are. Everyone knows what the problems are and everyone wants to see them resolved. Most of us don't need Trump or his supporters sitting on a high horse lecturing about what the problems are.

you could have saved all that typing and just said

"I'm a liberal and I don't like him because it goes against everything I've been indoctrinated to believe and it scares me"

It wasn't a lot of typing. Some of us understand the consequences of poorly thought out knee jerk reactions to complicated problems. For example, I'm willing to bet that very few on your side are considering what would and will happen if all those low paid undocumented workers are deported. Who will do the work and how will it affect inflation. Who will replace the cheap labor used in agriculture that keeps our food prices at current levels? How will it affect the cost of construction labor? You think you can deport all those low payed workers with American workers who will require better working conditions and pay and it will not have a affect at the stores, restaurants and other industries that depend on those low paid workers?

Don't blame us for this.

Obama set a precedent that has opened Pandora's box.

Every law on the books could be reinterpreted.

Now this could be biting liberals in the ass. You can't change hearts and minds through your ideas.....so maybe we need to do what you do and force it down your pieholes.

Reagan and HW Bush led the way into this mess with Reagan's amnesty in '86 and Bush's family reunification in '90. There is plenty of blame to go around. I am in favor of concentration camps for processing illegals deportation and punishment and prison sentences along with bankrupting fines for employers who knowingly hire illegals. In conjunction with those programs would be guest worker program with special provisions for agriculture workers to work for pay comparable to what would be earned in there home country with the addition to housing provided by the employer. That I believe are legally doable with minimal cost and unlike the Trump nonsense that is unworkable.

Try to keep up...reagan isn't the president now...neither is bush....

I've said it before...because a politician you DON'T like did something wrong in the past, it does NOT set a precedent to allow politicians you DO like to do wrong in the present.

Sure, it does. All sides do it all the time. Politics is a contact sport.