Texas denies anchor babies birth certificates

[ogibillm]

can anyone point out the clause in the 14th amendment that excludes children born in the united states to illegal immigrant parents?

Not a chance...

Jackson claims to have done so, but i can't find it. i'd really like to see where this idea stems from

{{sigh...}} 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.

save your sighs, that isn't in the amendment, and it doesn't say what you want it to anyway.

so what part of the 14th amendment do you think excludes the children of illegal immigrants born in the united states?

 

[peach174]

You have a one track mind.
You have taken it out of context.
No one has said that the word is in the 14th amendment.
We were talking about the Supreme Court case:
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.

Which means he was born an American, and was still an American when he returned from China. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Why can't you understand that his parents was here legally under American laws?

i think everyone understands that.
it's just irrelevant.

It is very relevant.
You can't come into the country breaking our laws and expect goodies.
Even Mexico has a better law than us.
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.

So you consider Mexican law better than the U.S. Constitution?

Interesting.

Why do so many of you add words that are not said?

I said Mexico has better illegal immigration laws than we do.

 

[Syriusly]

Which means he was born an American, and was still an American when he returned from China. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Why can't you understand that his parents was here legally under American laws?

i think everyone understands that.
it's just irrelevant.

It is very relevant.
You can't come into the country breaking our laws and expect goodies.
Even Mexico has a better law than us.
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.

So you consider Mexican law better than the U.S. Constitution?

Interesting.

Why do so many of you add words that are not said?

I said Mexico has better illegal immigration laws than we do.

The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution.

And by the way- I can enter Mexico quite fine without having to prove I can support myself.

 

[peach174]

can anyone point out the clause in the 14th amendment that excludes children born in the united states to illegal immigrant parents?

Not a chance...

Jackson claims to have done so, but i can't find it. i'd really like to see where this idea stems from

{{sigh...}} 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.

save your sighs, that isn't in the amendment, and it doesn't say what you want it to anyway.

so what part of the 14th amendment do you think excludes the children of illegal immigrants born in the united states?

Where does it say you can come here illegally and have your kid?

 

[peach174]

Why can't you understand that his parents was here legally under American laws?

i think everyone understands that.
it's just irrelevant.

It is very relevant.
You can't come into the country breaking our laws and expect goodies.
Even Mexico has a better law than us.
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.

So you consider Mexican law better than the U.S. Constitution?

Interesting.

Why do so many of you add words that are not said?

I said Mexico has better illegal immigration laws than we do.

The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution.

And by the way- I can enter Mexico quite fine without having to prove I can support myself.

So you live there?

 

[ogibillm]

can anyone point out the clause in the 14th amendment that excludes children born in the united states to illegal immigrant parents?

Not a chance...

Jackson claims to have done so, but i can't find it. i'd really like to see where this idea stems from

{{sigh...}} 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.

save your sighs, that isn't in the amendment, and it doesn't say what you want it to anyway.

so what part of the 14th amendment do you think excludes the children of illegal immigrants born in the united states?

Where does it say you can come here illegally and have your kid?

that's undoubtedly an illegal act and the parent could be prosecuted and deported
doesn't change that the kid would be a citizen - unless you can point to a part of the 14th amendment that excludes the children of illegal immigrants?

 

[g5000]

can anyone point out the clause in the 14th amendment that excludes children born in the united states to illegal immigrant parents?

Not a chance...

Jackson claims to have done so, but i can't find it. i'd really like to see where this idea stems from

{{sigh...}} 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.

save your sighs, that isn't in the amendment, and it doesn't say what you want it to anyway.

so what part of the 14th amendment do you think excludes the children of illegal immigrants born in the united states?

Where does it say you can come here illegally and have your kid?

It says the children born to parents under US jurisdiction are citizens. How many times will it take for you to get it?

 

[g5000]

I would bother wasting my time proving to you white's ARE superior to Blacks and Hispanics but why bother?

True...true...

THE MASTER RACE:

 

[peach174]

Not a chance...

Jackson claims to have done so, but i can't find it. i'd really like to see where this idea stems from

{{sigh...}} 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.

save your sighs, that isn't in the amendment, and it doesn't say what you want it to anyway.

so what part of the 14th amendment do you think excludes the children of illegal immigrants born in the united states?

Where does it say you can come here illegally and have your kid?

that's undoubtedly an illegal act and the parent could be prosecuted and deported
doesn't change that the kid would be a citizen - unless you can point to a part of the 14th amendment that excludes the children of illegal immigrants?

There is no reason why we can't write laws that would exclude them.
Changing the status quo would appear to require a constitutional amendment, a number of legal scholars disagree, concluding that nothing in the plain language of the amendment requires the present, expansive interpretation of birthright citizenship, and noting that the peculiar phrase in Section 1 referring to persons who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” would in fact seem to imply otherwise.

 

[peach174]

Not a chance...

Jackson claims to have done so, but i can't find it. i'd really like to see where this idea stems from

{{sigh...}} 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.

save your sighs, that isn't in the amendment, and it doesn't say what you want it to anyway.

so what part of the 14th amendment do you think excludes the children of illegal immigrants born in the united states?

Where does it say you can come here illegally and have your kid?

It says the children born to parents under US jurisdiction are citizens. How many times will it take for you to get it?

Were does it say for illegal parents?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Except that's completely unconstitutional.

Funny how once upon a few years ago the wingnuts all claimed that they were going to protect the Constitution.

Lying idiots.

I don't know if states have to cooperate wth anything the federal government decrees.

 

[hazlnut]

Texas Denies Birth Certificates to Children of Immigrants

Good job Texas! Leading the nation in common sense once again!

I thought the tea-drinking teatards were all pro-constitution -- I guess only when it suits them.

How about the FBI stops doing background checks for gun purchases in Texas, meaning all Fed lic. gun dealers are shut down until further notice.

 

[hazlnut]

Except that's completely unconstitutional.

Funny how once upon a few years ago the wingnuts all claimed that they were going to protect the Constitution.

Lying idiots.

I don't know if states have to cooperate wth anything the federal government decrees.

Why don't you know that?

Did you fail Civics?

 

[Preacher]

I would bother wasting my time proving to you white's ARE superior to Blacks and Hispanics but why bother?

I think it would be a great idea for you to start a topic about the superiority of the white race. It would be a great change of pace from the usual whining drek we see every day.

Only by wasting TRILLIONS and the loss of MILLIONS of lives has the goal of equality and multicultism been "successful" in the mind of the liberal.

I'm telling ya, PoliticalChic would get wet between her legs to hear you go on about this. She only needs a little nudge to realize her inner nazi.

At least you are honest about it. I respect that.

LMAO anyone who sees that multicultism and diversity are complete failures is now a nazi....good lord....what a tool.

Texas Denies Birth Certificates to Children of Immigrants

Good job Texas! Leading the nation in common sense once again!

I thought the tea-drinking teatards were all pro-constitution -- I guess only when it suits them.

How about the FBI stops doing background checks for gun purchases in Texas, meaning all Fed lic. gun dealers are shut down until further notice.

seeing how that's against 2nd amendment by infringing on getting a weapon they should stop doing that.

 

[jon_berzerk]

t

no i am not you are

yes, you are. you're trying to say that it only applies to former slaves and their children, which is more restrictive than the actual text of the amendment.

i didnt write the 14th amendment

however the founders of the 14th said it was for former slaves

it wasnt for the Indians for example

The Founders were dead by then, and it hardly matters what they thought since the Supreme Court doesn't think it was only for the children of slaves.

just how stupid can you be

obviously there was "founders of the 14th amendment" or

there would not be a 14th amendment

The Founders are the men who Founded this nation. They weren't writing amendments to the Constitution after the end of the Civil Fucking War,

not my fault that your vocabulary is limited

 

[Grandma]

I don't know if states have to cooperate wth anything the federal government decrees.

How stupid are you?

 

[jon_berzerk]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, states being unconstitutional, great idea...

You must have missed this part.

the link...
"But local officials, which issue birth certificates registered by the Texas Department of State Health Services Vital Statistics Unit, told the women they would no longer accept either the matricula consular, which is a photo ID issued by the Mexican Consulate to Mexican nationals living in the U.S., or a foreign passport without a current U.S. visa. Undocumented Central American women are also being turned away because they only have a passport without a U.S. visa. “They are locking out a huge chunk of the undocumented immigrant community,” says Harbury"

Guess you need a visa. If you're an illegal you won't have one.

An undocumented immigrant is not 'illegal' until found guilty in a court of law of entering the country absent authorization; undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process, as are all persons in the United States (Plyler v. Doe).

Moreover, to deny an American citizen a birth certificate solely because of his parent's immigration status clearly violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Texas denies anchor babies birth certificates"

Again, there is no such thing as an 'anchor baby.'

"[H]ere's the real proof that having a baby in the United States does little to help an undocumented parent remain in the United States, there's this:

In 2011, there were at least 5,000 children in state custody or foster care because an undocumented parent or parents has been deported, according to a study released by the Applied Research Center, a New York-based think tank that focuses on racial and social justice issues. Some estimates put that figure even higher today. Immigration and Customs Enforcement sent mandatory reports to the Senate that among other things revealed that during 2013, the agency deported 72,410 people who told federal authorities they have one or more U.S. citizen children.

Each of these children and their parents certainly know the "anchor baby" is not real."

The myth of the ‘anchor baby’ deportation defense

Texas is only denying birth certificates to American citizens in violation of the Constitution.

 

[Ravi]

Jackson claims to have done so, but i can't find it. i'd really like to see where this idea stems from

{{sigh...}} 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.

save your sighs, that isn't in the amendment, and it doesn't say what you want it to anyway.

so what part of the 14th amendment do you think excludes the children of illegal immigrants born in the united states?

Where does it say you can come here illegally and have your kid?

that's undoubtedly an illegal act and the parent could be prosecuted and deported
doesn't change that the kid would be a citizen - unless you can point to a part of the 14th amendment that excludes the children of illegal immigrants?

There is no reason why we can't write laws that would exclude them.
Changing the status quo would appear to require a constitutional amendment, a number of legal scholars disagree, concluding that nothing in the plain language of the amendment requires the present, expansive interpretation of birthright citizenship, and noting that the peculiar phrase in Section 1 referring to persons who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” would in fact seem to imply otherwise.

Diplomats aren't subject to our jurisdiction. They could get away with murder because we can't prosecute them. Aliens that are not diplomats do not enjoy that protection because they are under our jurisdiction.