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

[PaintMyHouse]

Poor, poor whitey. You're fucked, and I couldn't care less...

 

[Camp]

Perhaps people with a 3 digit IQ will understand this....No liberals need apply!

Neither one of these guys are considered or recognized as constitutional experts, let alone scholars. They just repeat the same points that the experts and scholars keep saying they are wrong about.

Right, Levin wrote a book on the supreme court, you might want to get someone to read it to ya.

So what. That does't make him a constitutional expert or scholar. He wrote the Conservative Manifesto too. They guy is a political agenda driven commentator. Not a bad thing, but not someone you would expect to get an objective view from. No recognized experts or scholars on constitutional law are backing up his view. In fact, his view is kind of irrelevant now after being rejected by so many critics of his opinion on the subject. He is stuck on the Howard statements made in 1866 and as has been pointed out over and over, statements made by a Senator years before a vote on the Amendment mean nothing. They statements were rejected and discarded when it came time to vote. Levin is a huckster.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Poor, poor whitey. You're fucked, and I couldn't care less...

Oh no we're not. With Trump as president those numbers will be reversed as we deport the 3rd world scum you relish.

 

[ogibillm]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of conygress in the 1920's.

There was more than one "framer". There were debates and you take one portion of one quote from one supporter out of context. More importantly, you don't fucking understand the words and intentionally change them. He did not say it was intended to exclude "...foreigners, aliens and diplomats." The word "and" does not appear in the quote. The real quote is "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." The meaning is that foreigners, aliens, who are here with a parent who is a diplomats and therefore not subject to our jurisdiction, will not become citizens at birth but every other child born here will. The phrase, " who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" modifies both the words "foreigners and aliens". From the structure of the sentence, he was referring to one group: foreigners, that is aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors. That is how the Supreme Court in construed it in 1898.

What's the difference between foreigners and aliens? A diplomat damn sure isn't an alien.

yes, they are

 

[OKTexas]

Perhaps people with a 3 digit IQ will understand this....No liberals need apply!

Neither one of these guys are considered or recognized as constitutional experts, let alone scholars. They just repeat the same points that the experts and scholars keep saying they are wrong about.

Right, Levin wrote a book on the supreme court, you might want to get someone to read it to ya.

So what. That does't make him a constitutional expert or scholar. He wrote the Conservative Manifesto too. They guy is a political agenda driven commentator. Not a bad thing, but not someone you would expect to get an objective view from. No recognized experts or scholars on constitutional law are backing up his view. In fact, his view is kind of irrelevant now after being rejected by so many critics of his opinion on the subject. He is stuck on the Howard statements made in 1866 and as has been pointed out over and over, statements made by a Senator years before a vote on the Amendment mean nothing. They statements were rejected and discarded when it came time to vote. Levin is a huckster.

Ok, I'll put this so you can easily understand, then I'm done. You're full of crap, he explained the language they were voting on, there was no rejection. They accepted the 14th as written because of it.

 

[Rotagilla]

Here's an option to arguing the 14th...partisan activist judges would keep it tangled up in court for years anyway.

Let's adopt the mexican immigration rules.

Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

• in the country legally;

• have the means to sustain themselves economically;

• not destined to be burdens on society;

• of economic and social benefit to society;

• of good character and have no criminal records; and

• contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

• immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

• foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

• foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

• foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

• foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

• those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens — and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or
General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country’s immigration policy.

It is an interesting law — and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a
crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let’s look at Mexico’s main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

• Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)

• Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)

• Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)

• The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

• Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

• A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

• A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

• Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

• Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

• Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

• Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

• Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

• “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)

• Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

• Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

• A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

• Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico’s immigration practices versus its American
immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government’s agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

Let’s call Mexico’s bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let’s propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico’s own law as a model.

 

[OKTexas]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of conygress in the 1920's.

There was more than one "framer". There were debates and you take one portion of one quote from one supporter out of context. More importantly, you don't fucking understand the words and intentionally change them. He did not say it was intended to exclude "...foreigners, aliens and diplomats." The word "and" does not appear in the quote. The real quote is "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." The meaning is that foreigners, aliens, who are here with a parent who is a diplomats and therefore not subject to our jurisdiction, will not become citizens at birth but every other child born here will. The phrase, " who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" modifies both the words "foreigners and aliens". From the structure of the sentence, he was referring to one group: foreigners, that is aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors. That is how the Supreme Court in construed it in 1898.

What's the difference between foreigners and aliens? A diplomat damn sure isn't an alien.

yes, they are

Define the difference between foreigners, aliens and diplomats.

 

[ogibillm]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of conygress in the 1920's.

There was more than one "framer". There were debates and you take one portion of one quote from one supporter out of context. More importantly, you don't fucking understand the words and intentionally change them. He did not say it was intended to exclude "...foreigners, aliens and diplomats." The word "and" does not appear in the quote. The real quote is "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." The meaning is that foreigners, aliens, who are here with a parent who is a diplomats and therefore not subject to our jurisdiction, will not become citizens at birth but every other child born here will. The phrase, " who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" modifies both the words "foreigners and aliens". From the structure of the sentence, he was referring to one group: foreigners, that is aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors. That is how the Supreme Court in construed it in 1898.

What's the difference between foreigners and aliens? A diplomat damn sure isn't an alien.

yes, they are

Define the difference between foreigners, aliens and diplomats.

there is no difference. aliens are foreigners. so are diplomats. diplomats are a special type of alien in that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of their host country (at least that's how we treat them)

do you not have a dictionary?

 

[OKTexas]

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of conygress in the 1920's.

There was more than one "framer". There were debates and you take one portion of one quote from one supporter out of context. More importantly, you don't fucking understand the words and intentionally change them. He did not say it was intended to exclude "...foreigners, aliens and diplomats." The word "and" does not appear in the quote. The real quote is "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." The meaning is that foreigners, aliens, who are here with a parent who is a diplomats and therefore not subject to our jurisdiction, will not become citizens at birth but every other child born here will. The phrase, " who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" modifies both the words "foreigners and aliens". From the structure of the sentence, he was referring to one group: foreigners, that is aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors. That is how the Supreme Court in construed it in 1898.

What's the difference between foreigners and aliens? A diplomat damn sure isn't an alien.

yes, they are

Define the difference between foreigners, aliens and diplomats.

there is no difference. aliens are foreigners. so are diplomats. diplomats are a special type of alien in that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of their host country (at least that's how we treat them)

do you not have a dictionary?

foreigner
[ ˈfôrənər, ˈfär- ]
NOUN

1. 
   a person born in or coming from a country other than one's own.

alien
[ ˈālyən, ˈālēən ]
ADJECTIVE

1. 
   belonging to a foreign country or nation.

NOUN

a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living:

diplomat
[ ˈdipləˌmat ]
NOUN

1. 
   an official representing a country abroad.
   synonyms: ambassador · attaché · consul · chargé d'affaires · envoy ·

Not so much the same are they, I guess you're the one with no dictionary. So let's recap shall we?

foreigner = people born in another country, for the 14th's purposes these would be visitors from others countries to the US.

aliens = people born in another country living in, not just visiting, the US.

diplomats = persons and their immediate families, credentialed by and representing a foreign government, posted in the US or its territories and accepted for posting by the US Dept. of State. They enjoy immunity from US laws under international agreements.

All three were not considered under the total jurisdiction of the US in the 14th and exempted from birthright citizenship for their offspring, assuming both parents were not US citizens.

 

[oreo]

ANYTHING that is written in the U.S. Constitution has to be dealt with by the U.S. Supreme Court. PERIOD
The 14th amendment is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution--DA DUH!

Again--we have 3 branches of government--they are--legislative--executive--and judicial. This is a judicial matter and those are handled by the U.S. Supreme Court.

How stupid are people for their talk show hosts to make such an influence on them, that they actually believe the garbage that comes out of their mouths?

 

[ogibillm]

There was more than one "framer". There were debates and you take one portion of one quote from one supporter out of context. More importantly, you don't fucking understand the words and intentionally change them. He did not say it was intended to exclude "...foreigners, aliens and diplomats." The word "and" does not appear in the quote. The real quote is "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." The meaning is that foreigners, aliens, who are here with a parent who is a diplomats and therefore not subject to our jurisdiction, will not become citizens at birth but every other child born here will. The phrase, " who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" modifies both the words "foreigners and aliens". From the structure of the sentence, he was referring to one group: foreigners, that is aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors. That is how the Supreme Court in construed it in 1898.

What's the difference between foreigners and aliens? A diplomat damn sure isn't an alien.

yes, they are

Define the difference between foreigners, aliens and diplomats.

there is no difference. aliens are foreigners. so are diplomats. diplomats are a special type of alien in that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of their host country (at least that's how we treat them)

do you not have a dictionary?

foreigner
[ ˈfôrənər, ˈfär- ]
NOUN

1. 
   a person born in or coming from a country other than one's own.

alien
[ ˈālyən, ˈālēən ]
ADJECTIVE

1. 
   belonging to a foreign country or nation.

NOUN

a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living:

diplomat
[ ˈdipləˌmat ]
NOUN

1. 
   an official representing a country abroad.
   synonyms: ambassador · attaché · consul · chargé d'affaires · envoy ·

Not so much the same are they, I guess you're the one with no dictionary. So let's recap shall we?

foreigner = people born in another country, for the 14th's purposes these would be visitors from others countries to the US.

aliens = people born in another country living in, not just visiting, the US.

diplomats = persons and their immediate families, credentialed by and representing a foreign government, posted in the US or its territories and accepted for posting by the US Dept. of State. They enjoy immunity from US laws under international agreements.

All three were not considered under the total jurisdiction of the US in the 14th and exempted from birthright citizenship for their offspring, assuming both parents were not US citizens.

no, they're still the same. your own definition uses 'foreigner' as the definition for 'alien'
we all agree that diplomats are different, but that they are still foreigners, aliens.

an nowhere does the 14th amendment exclude the children of anyone unless they do not fall under the sovereignty of the united states. that means diplomats and pretty much nobody else.

 

[ogibillm]

ANYTHING that is written in the U.S. Constitution has to be dealt with by the U.S. Supreme Court. PERIOD
The 14th amendment is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution--DA DUH!

Again--we have 3 branches of government--they are--legislative--executive--and judicial. This is a judicial matter and those are handled by the U.S. Supreme Court.

How stupid are people for their talk show hosts to make such an influence on them, that they actually believe the garbage that comes out of their mouths?

they're trying to pretend that while illegal aliens are subject to the laws and legal system of the united states that somehow they are not under the jurisdiction of the united states.

it's absolutely mornonic and has been decided by the courts.

 

[OKTexas]

What's the difference between foreigners and aliens? A diplomat damn sure isn't an alien.

yes, they are

Define the difference between foreigners, aliens and diplomats.

there is no difference. aliens are foreigners. so are diplomats. diplomats are a special type of alien in that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of their host country (at least that's how we treat them)

do you not have a dictionary?

foreigner
[ ˈfôrənər, ˈfär- ]
NOUN

1. 
   a person born in or coming from a country other than one's own.

alien
[ ˈālyən, ˈālēən ]
ADJECTIVE

1. 
   belonging to a foreign country or nation.

NOUN

a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living:

diplomat
[ ˈdipləˌmat ]
NOUN

1. 
   an official representing a country abroad.
   synonyms: ambassador · attaché · consul · chargé d'affaires · envoy ·

Not so much the same are they, I guess you're the one with no dictionary. So let's recap shall we?

foreigner = people born in another country, for the 14th's purposes these would be visitors from others countries to the US.

aliens = people born in another country living in, not just visiting, the US.

diplomats = persons and their immediate families, credentialed by and representing a foreign government, posted in the US or its territories and accepted for posting by the US Dept. of State. They enjoy immunity from US laws under international agreements.

All three were not considered under the total jurisdiction of the US in the 14th and exempted from birthright citizenship for their offspring, assuming both parents were not US citizens.

no, they're still the same. your own definition uses 'foreigner' as the definition for 'alien'
we all agree that diplomats are different, but that they are still foreigners, aliens.

an nowhere does the 14th amendment exclude the children of anyone unless they do not fall under the sovereignty of the united states. that means diplomats and pretty much nobody else.

Sorry oh ignorant one, I'm not going to waste my time on someone who doesn't know the difference between an adjective and a noun. Bye bye.

 

[paddymurphy]

yes, they are

Define the difference between foreigners, aliens and diplomats.

there is no difference. aliens are foreigners. so are diplomats. diplomats are a special type of alien in that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of their host country (at least that's how we treat them)

do you not have a dictionary?

foreigner
[ ˈfôrənər, ˈfär- ]
NOUN

1. 
   a person born in or coming from a country other than one's own.

alien
[ ˈālyən, ˈālēən ]
ADJECTIVE

1. 
   belonging to a foreign country or nation.

NOUN

a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living:

diplomat
[ ˈdipləˌmat ]
NOUN

1. 
   an official representing a country abroad.
   synonyms: ambassador · attaché · consul · chargé d'affaires · envoy ·

Not so much the same are they, I guess you're the one with no dictionary. So let's recap shall we?

foreigner = people born in another country, for the 14th's purposes these would be visitors from others countries to the US.

aliens = people born in another country living in, not just visiting, the US.

diplomats = persons and their immediate families, credentialed by and representing a foreign government, posted in the US or its territories and accepted for posting by the US Dept. of State. They enjoy immunity from US laws under international agreements.

All three were not considered under the total jurisdiction of the US in the 14th and exempted from birthright citizenship for their offspring, assuming both parents were not US citizens.

no, they're still the same. your own definition uses 'foreigner' as the definition for 'alien'
we all agree that diplomats are different, but that they are still foreigners, aliens.

an nowhere does the 14th amendment exclude the children of anyone unless they do not fall under the sovereignty of the united states. that means diplomats and pretty much nobody else.

Sorry oh ignorant one, I'm not going to waste my time on someone who doesn't know the difference between an adjective and a noun. Bye bye.

In Plyler v. Doe, all nine justices agreed with Justice Brennan's conclusion that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark held that all foreigners or aliens, except those with diplomatic immunity, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Therefore, if a person is born in the US, they are citizens. Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, wrote:

Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was

impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that

[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

Id. at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).

So, contrary to the idiotic assertions that Justice Brennan relied on the book by C. Bouve, he relied on the detailed analysis of Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark as to the meaning of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and his conclusion that any person here, other than a diplomat, is subject to the jurisdiction of the US and, if they give birth to a child here, that child is a citizen.

Chief Justice Burger, writing for the minority, agreed:
" I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state."

In INS v. Rios Pineda, the Supreme Court's unanimous decision included the following:

"Respondents, a married couple, are natives and citizens of Mexico. Respondent husband illegally entered the United States in 1972. Apprehended, he returned to Mexico in early 1974 under threat of deportation. Two months later, he and respondent wife paid a professional smuggler $450 to transport them into this country, entering the United States without inspection through the smuggler's efforts. Respondent husband was again apprehended by INS agents in 1978. At his request, he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation. He was also granted two subsequent extensions of time to depart, but he ultimately declined to leave as promised. INS then instituted deportation proceedings against both respondents. By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability, but requested

You clowns can practice you amateur legal analysis all you want but the fact remains that the United States Supreme Court, and every other Court in this nation, accept as settled law that any person born in the United States, regardless of the legality of the Mother's presence, is natural born United States Citizen. Two stalwart conservatives, George Will and Charles Krauthammer agree. You lost this debate over a century ago but are too stupid to realize it. Today, there will be children born to illegal immigrants. They will be given birth certificates that identify them as American Citizens. They will eventually get Social Security Numbers. When they are 18, they will register to vote and register for selective service. Should they desire to travel abroad, they will get passports identifying them as US citizens. For all of the mental masturbation you and your like minded friends have engaged in on this thread and others the last couple of says, that remains a fact that you cannot change. You cannot take away from the millions of native born Americans whose parents happen to have entered here illegally their citizenship. And there is no support in Congress for either passing a law to see of the Supreme Court is willing to revisit and overturn a precedent that has lasted for over 120 years or seeking to amend the constitution. So, go ahead and pretend to have a clue about Constitutional law while illegal aliens will continue to give birth to American Citizens who are likely, when grown, to have far better understanding of and appreciation for the things that make this nation great than you do.

 

[bodecea]

This should be the cornerstone plank of the GOP platform in 2016. It's a winning argument!

 

[ogibillm]

yes, they are

Define the difference between foreigners, aliens and diplomats.

there is no difference. aliens are foreigners. so are diplomats. diplomats are a special type of alien in that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of their host country (at least that's how we treat them)

do you not have a dictionary?

foreigner
[ ˈfôrənər, ˈfär- ]
NOUN

1. 
   a person born in or coming from a country other than one's own.

alien
[ ˈālyən, ˈālēən ]
ADJECTIVE

1. 
   belonging to a foreign country or nation.

NOUN

a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living:

diplomat
[ ˈdipləˌmat ]
NOUN

1. 
   an official representing a country abroad.
   synonyms: ambassador · attaché · consul · chargé d'affaires · envoy ·

Not so much the same are they, I guess you're the one with no dictionary. So let's recap shall we?

foreigner = people born in another country, for the 14th's purposes these would be visitors from others countries to the US.

aliens = people born in another country living in, not just visiting, the US.

diplomats = persons and their immediate families, credentialed by and representing a foreign government, posted in the US or its territories and accepted for posting by the US Dept. of State. They enjoy immunity from US laws under international agreements.

All three were not considered under the total jurisdiction of the US in the 14th and exempted from birthright citizenship for their offspring, assuming both parents were not US citizens.

no, they're still the same. your own definition uses 'foreigner' as the definition for 'alien'
we all agree that diplomats are different, but that they are still foreigners, aliens.

an nowhere does the 14th amendment exclude the children of anyone unless they do not fall under the sovereignty of the united states. that means diplomats and pretty much nobody else.

Sorry oh ignorant one, I'm not going to waste my time on someone who doesn't know the difference between an adjective and a noun. Bye bye.

foreigner and alien are both nouns. so is diplomat. alien can be an adjective, and foreign can be an adjective, but foreigner and alien are both nouns.

did you think that alien could only be an adjective?

 

[paddymurphy]

As only The Great One can explain!

In Plyler v. Doe, all nine justices agreed with Justice Brennan's conclusion that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark held that all foreigners or aliens, except those with diplomatic immunity, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Therefore, if a person is born in the US, they are citizens. Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, wrote:

Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was

impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that

[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

Id. at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).

So, contrary to the idiotic assertions that Justice Brennan relied on the book by C. Bouve, he relied on the detailed analysis of Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark as to the meaning of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and his conclusion that any person here, other than a diplomat, is subject to the jurisdiction of the US and, if they give birth to a child here, that child is a citizen.

Chief Justice Burger, writing for the minority, agreed:
" I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state."

In INS v. Rios Pineda, the Supreme Court's unanimous decision included the following:

"Respondents, a married couple, are natives and citizens of Mexico. Respondent husband illegally entered the United States in 1972. Apprehended, he returned to Mexico in early 1974 under threat of deportation. Two months later, he and respondent wife paid a professional smuggler $450 to transport them into this country, entering the United States without inspection through the smuggler's efforts. Respondent husband was again apprehended by INS agents in 1978. At his request, he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation. He was also granted two subsequent extensions of time to depart, but he ultimately declined to leave as promised. INS then instituted deportation proceedings against both respondents. By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability, but requested

You clowns can practice you amateur legal analysis all you want but the fact remains that the United States Supreme Court, and every other Court in this nation, accept as settled law that any person born in the United States, regardless of the legality of the Mother's presence, is natural born United States Citizen. Two stalwart conservatives, George Will and Charles Krauthammer agree. You lost this debate over a century ago but are too stupid to realize it. Today, there will be children born to illegal immigrants. They will be given birth certificates that identify them as American Citizens. They will eventually get Social Security Numbers. When they are 18, they will register to vote and register for selective service. Should they desire to travel abroad, they will get passports identifying them as US citizens. For all of the mental masturbation you and your like minded friends have engaged in on this thread and others the last couple of says, that remains a fact that you cannot change. You cannot take away from the millions of native born Americans whose parents happen to have entered here illegally their citizenship. And there is no support in Congress for either passing a law to see of the Supreme Court is willing to revisit and overturn a precedent that has lasted for over 120 years or seeking to amend the constitution. So, go ahead and pretend to have a clue about Constitutional law while illegal aliens will continue to give birth to American Citizens who are likely, when grown, to have far better understanding of and appreciation for the things that make this nation great than you do.

 

[FA_Q2]

Thanks for the case cite.