Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
They don't? A foreigner in this country illegally does not fall under the jurisdiction of US law?
Hey, moron. Did you stop reading as soon as you hit the word "foreigners" and not read the rest of the sentence?For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)
That is a lie. The ONLY condition US v Wong Kim Ark placed on citizenship was US jurisdiction. There was no requirement for the parents to be legal residents or gainfully employed.
Liar.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
As for the 14th amendment, the sponsor of that amendment (Jacob Howard) made it crystal clear that birthright citizenship was for everyone, excluding the children of foreign ministers and ambassadors.
Another Congressman (Doolittle) attempted to add a change to the 14th amendment which would exclude Indians, and Howard pointed out Indians were not under the jurisdiction of the US, and therefore the change was unnecessary.
http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif
"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."
So you are wrong, Vigilante.
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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Thanks for proving I'm RIGHT .... 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]
Born in the U.S. from TWO ILLEGAL PARENTS THAT ARE FOREIGNERS DISQUALIFIES THE BABY FROM CITIZENSHIP, and Brennan FOOTNOTE, NOT the OPINION of the majority of the court, DOES NOT QUALIFY as law!
Thanks for making it EASY!
This is the kind of spew that Mark Levin thinks passes for a sound legal argument:
(CNSNews.com) - The same-sex marriage case argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday has no business being there, says conservative talk show host Mark Levin.
"Where there's not a clear federal constitutional issue...then why should the federal courts intervene? Why should the Supreme Court intervene? The equal protection clause doesn't say the 'liberal promotion clause' or the 'radical egalitarianism clause,' where people can pour their economic, social and cultural agendas into the Constitution for the courts to decide."
The 14th Amendment, which contains the equal protection clause (see text below), does not mean "everybody is the same, everything is uniform," Levin said. It's not a "grab bag for every egalitarian dream on the face of the earth."
Illegal immigrants do not owe allegiance to foreign powers. That term is reserved for diplomats and foreign ministers who reside here.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.
They don't? A foreigner in this country illegally does not fall under the jurisdiction of US law?
Yes they fall under US law, but they owe political allegiance to a foreign power which according to the framers of the 14th they do not fall under the total jurisdiction of the US and they and their children are excluded from citizenship. I posted their intent in this thread, and others, read it.
As only The Great One can explain!
Yo, the 14th Amendment says Trump can kick all illegals out, including Anchor Babies!!! Go Trump! The News Broadcasters are just stupid people who have no clue!!!
A correct understanding of the intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and legislation passed by Congress in the late 19th century and in 1923 extending citizenship to American Indians provide ample proof that Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Simple legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president would be constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Read more at: Birthright Citizenship Not Mandated by Constitution | National Review Online
Yo, the legalization of illegals is Un-Constitutional! And Obama being a Constitutional Student knows this, so I say throw the bum in jail and throw away the key!!!
"GTP"
View attachment 47893
As only The Great One can explain!
Illegal immigrants do not owe allegiance to foreign powers. That term is reserved for diplomats and foreign ministers who reside here.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.
They don't? A foreigner in this country illegally does not fall under the jurisdiction of US law?
Yes they fall under US law, but they owe political allegiance to a foreign power which according to the framers of the 14th they do not fall under the total jurisdiction of the US and they and their children are excluded from citizenship. I posted their intent in this thread, and others, read it.
Jesus, is ANYONE reading the links I have provided multiple times?
Read the links I have provided. I provided the Congressional Record which contains the statements of the very sponsor of the 14th Amendment. I have also provided the Supreme Court decision for US v. Wong Kim Ark.This is the kind of spew that Mark Levin thinks passes for a sound legal argument:
(CNSNews.com) - The same-sex marriage case argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday has no business being there, says conservative talk show host Mark Levin.
"Where there's not a clear federal constitutional issue...then why should the federal courts intervene? Why should the Supreme Court intervene? The equal protection clause doesn't say the 'liberal promotion clause' or the 'radical egalitarianism clause,' where people can pour their economic, social and cultural agendas into the Constitution for the courts to decide."
The 14th Amendment, which contains the equal protection clause (see text below), does not mean "everybody is the same, everything is uniform," Levin said. It's not a "grab bag for every egalitarian dream on the face of the earth."
tell us again how many cases you've argued in the Supreme Court, "counselor"?
Compare and contrast that with mark levin....you're going to come up short, "counselor".
Stick to insulting trump and people who support him..you're out of your league here.
Weakest argument of the day...I thought right wingers worshipped the unchangable constitution?
Illegal immigrants do not owe allegiance to foreign powers. That term is reserved for diplomats and foreign ministers who reside here.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.
They don't? A foreigner in this country illegally does not fall under the jurisdiction of US law?
Yes they fall under US law, but they owe political allegiance to a foreign power which according to the framers of the 14th they do not fall under the total jurisdiction of the US and they and their children are excluded from citizenship. I posted their intent in this thread, and others, read it.
Jesus, is ANYONE reading the links I have provided multiple times?
The Know-Nothings are not English proficient.
oh here we go...toss in all the "faulty logic" debate terms you can think of as a cover to distract people and hope it gets byThey're also examples of a false comparison fallacy.Levin is as much an idiot as Trump, and just as wrong
This comes from the troll that says the PC is a myth and runs from me when I bring up Howard and Jimmy the Greek?
Retard... Go back to that troll bridge you came from....
Those are just examples of business decisions made based on market analysis.
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.
Q. How does that impact children born in the United States?
A. It has no effect, children born in the United States are United States Citizens.
Naturalization Eligibility Requirements
Before an individual applies for naturalization, he or she must meet a few requirements. Depending on the individual’s situation, there are different requirements that may apply. General requirements for naturalization are below.
***Felons need not apply
- Be at least 18 years old at the time of filing Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
- Be a permanent resident (have a “Green Card”) for at least 5 years.
- Show that you have lived for at least 3 months in the state or USCIS district where you apply.
- Demonstrate continuous residence in the United States for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing Form N-400.
- Show that you have been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing Form N-400.
- Be able to read, write, and speak basic English.
- Have a basic understanding of U.S. history and government (civics).
- Be a person of good moral character.***
- Demonstrate an attachment to the principles and ideals of the U.S. Constitution.
The author of the 14th amendment. Senator Howard, wrote an essay about the amendment so it would not be misconstrued.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 congress in the 1920's.
Sure I can refute it. He's wrong.
you said it now back it up.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed.
- 14th Amendment to the US Constitution - Library of Congress
www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/.../14thamendment.html
Library of Congress
Loading...
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Hey, moron. Did you stop reading as soon as you hit the word "foreigners" and not read the rest of the sentence?For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)
That is a lie. The ONLY condition US v Wong Kim Ark placed on citizenship was US jurisdiction. There was no requirement for the parents to be legal residents or gainfully employed.
Liar.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
As for the 14th amendment, the sponsor of that amendment (Jacob Howard) made it crystal clear that birthright citizenship was for everyone, excluding the children of foreign ministers and ambassadors.
Another Congressman (Doolittle) attempted to add a change to the 14th amendment which would exclude Indians, and Howard pointed out Indians were not under the jurisdiction of the US, and therefore the change was unnecessary.
http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif
"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."
So you are wrong, Vigilante.
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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Thanks for proving I'm RIGHT .... 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]
Born in the U.S. from TWO ILLEGAL PARENTS THAT ARE FOREIGNERS DISQUALIFIES THE BABY FROM CITIZENSHIP, and Brennan FOOTNOTE, NOT the OPINION of the majority of the court, DOES NOT QUALIFY as law!
Thanks for making it EASY!
Jesus, I 've seen some willful blindness on this forum, but this is really something!
Foreigners WHO BELONG TO THE FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS OR FOREIGN MINISTERS.
Goddam, you are an idiot.
Of course it effects their children, they cannot confer birth right citizenship if they aren't citizens themselves and owe allegiance to a foreign government. Read the link I provided.
what nonsense...prohibition was enacted and then repealed. So much for THATI thought right wingers worshipped the unchangable constitution?
No I am just pointed out how dishonest the left and you are.This is your refute?
Don't want to post the phrase in the 14th that reads "and subject to the jurisdiction there of"
Wow. You believe some whiney talk show idiot just found the key that the right has been looking so long for? There are procedures for changing the constitution, but other than that, why hasn't some smart right winger pointed that out before? Could it be that smarter people than you already knew that was there but it didn't hold water?
Quit your crying, you tried to be intellectually dishonest in your post to refute ok's post by just posting the part of the 14th that you agree with.
Guess ok's other post was to long for you to comprehend so you quoted mine.
Nothing dishonest about an answer that covers the question. Obviously the right thinks Levin, or trump, or some other rattlehead found a magic phrase that will solve all your fears and worries about immigration, and I say it won't work. That's about as far as we need to go. If you think your little idea is valid, then you don't need to be wasting time here. Show what kind of a man you are and demand that somebody do something about it. If your little phrase is that forceful and definitive, we should be hearing about congressional hearitngs by tomorrow night.
Always post half truths, so you can trick the uninformed, if you say you know the 14th so well you know it was written for slaves, it didn't include Indians or foreign ambassadors children born here.
God damb I personally think some one born on US soil is an American
Like said in this thread in the CDZ
CDZ - Should the U.S. pass the Birthright Citizenship Act? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
But you just want to attack a talk show host because you don't like information put out there for people to learn more about something? And your refute was to just post part of the 14th amendment?
But hey why should I be surprised that's all your ilk does... Attack messengers and post half truths.
No, My refute was a simple "You're wrong". The 14th is why you are wrong.
OK...I get it. I admit I am not a constitutional scholar and must rely on people who are. You don't really know more about it than I do, but you think some talking head has found a secret phrase that proves all the constitutional scholars wrong. That doesn't sound reasonable to me, but I guess it is for a right winger.
United States v. Wong Kim ArkLevin 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 congress in the 1920's.
Sure I can refute it. He's wrong.
As only The Great One can explain!
Yo, the 14th Amendment says Trump can kick all illegals out, including Anchor Babies!!! Go Trump! The News Broadcasters are just stupid people who have no clue!!!
A correct understanding of the intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and legislation passed by Congress in the late 19th century and in 1923 extending citizenship to American Indians provide ample proof that Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Simple legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president would be constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Read more at: Birthright Citizenship Not Mandated by Constitution | National Review Online
Yo, the legalization of illegals is Un-Constitutional! And Obama being a Constitutional Student knows this, so I say throw the bum in jail and throw away the key!!!
"GTP"
View attachment 47893
The Constitution enumerates no such power for congress to decide that. It particularly takes settles the matter with the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that people of all ethnicities are entitled to the standard--that those born here are American citizens. This can only be controverted by bigots and ignoramuses.
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.
Nope. It was meant to exclude diplomats who are immune from US jurisdiction, not children born here.
In fact, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted citizenship to anyone born here. It was vetoed twice by Johnson, but Congress overrode it with a two-thirds majority.
This was in the same time frame as the 14th Amendment. So your claim the framers of the 14th did not intend birthright citizenship is complete bullshit.
Why do you insist on tripling down on your stupidity? This is very weird.Hey, moron. Did you stop reading as soon as you hit the word "foreigners" and not read the rest of the sentence?For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)
That is a lie. The ONLY condition US v Wong Kim Ark placed on citizenship was US jurisdiction. There was no requirement for the parents to be legal residents or gainfully employed.
Liar.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
As for the 14th amendment, the sponsor of that amendment (Jacob Howard) made it crystal clear that birthright citizenship was for everyone, excluding the children of foreign ministers and ambassadors.
Another Congressman (Doolittle) attempted to add a change to the 14th amendment which would exclude Indians, and Howard pointed out Indians were not under the jurisdiction of the US, and therefore the change was unnecessary.
http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif
"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."
So you are wrong, Vigilante.
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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Thanks for proving I'm RIGHT .... 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]
Born in the U.S. from TWO ILLEGAL PARENTS THAT ARE FOREIGNERS DISQUALIFIES THE BABY FROM CITIZENSHIP, and Brennan FOOTNOTE, NOT the OPINION of the majority of the court, DOES NOT QUALIFY as law!
Thanks for making it EASY!
Jesus, I 've seen some willful blindness on this forum, but this is really something!
Foreigners WHO BELONG TO THE FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS OR FOREIGN MINISTERS.
Goddam, you are an idiot.
You can't even POST the correct part of the Amendment word for word!
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 accredited to the Government of the United States,
You SEE Commas between those words, separating objects?...they are 3 SEPARATE entities! NOT all ONE object.... Morons are YOU!
