Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Boss]

It didn't apply to certain Native Americans-

But hold on... if it applies to anyone born on US soil by the sole virtue of being born on US soil... why would it NOT apply to some Native Americans, born on the same US soil? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here, like a typical liberal always does.

YES-- Born + Jurisdiction = Citizen, but an illegal alien is not subject to the jurisdiction. Just as certain Native Americans before 1923 and passage of a citizenship act specifically for them.

WTF? Subject to the jurisdiction of the state. If an illegal alien commits a crime he can be prosecuted here.

You need to read the link I posted, you are misinterpreting "jurisdiction" for the geography context and that is NOT what it means here. And the problem is, the SCOTUS has reams and reams of deliberation on precisely what this clause means and what "jurisdiction" means in this context.

We go back to your same example in 1890... If a Native American walked off his tribal lands and killed a white man, he would be subject to US law. It would not matter that he was a Native American who was not a citizen. Everyone is already assumed subjects of US law if they are in the US... some will argue that diplomats aren't, but they are as well... they can't go on a killing spree then claim diplomatic immunity... it doesn't work that way. So this is not about geography.

Jurisdiction in this context, means (and always has meant) allegiance owed. An illegal alien's allegiance is still owed to his home country, and by virtue, his minor offspring children are as well because they are in his custody. The Wong case is not about ILLEGAL immigrants.

 

[Syriusly]

And Mexico is also a sovereign territory! Illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" because they have not been naturalized as citizens of the US, they are still citizens of Mexico. But even still... IF the 14th (or Wong) meant you are a citizen because you popped out of momma's womb on US soil.. then why are you giving me excuses for how Native Americans didn't qualify? You're trying to explain why something is two different things but insisting it's only one thing.

How many fucking times do you have to be told that Indians born on US soil, that is, not on the land ceded to the various Indian tribes, were US citizens? And yes, Mexican territory is sovereign and if a person is born on that territory, guess what, they are not US citizens.

If a child is born in mexico to american parents, that child is american, not mexican.

A child born to American Citizens anywhere in the world is an American Citizen, by birth. They are also, depending upon the law of that nation, citizens of that nation. That would be why Cruz was a dual citizen of the US and Canada until a year or so ago. And Mexico also grants birthright citizenship to anyone born in Mexico. View attachment 48349
See the pink colors. Those nations have birthright citizenship. Mexico is pink.

Yes, I get it. The anchor baby advocates are not asking for dual citizenship, they are asking for american citizenship.

No one is asking for anything except Trump and his supporters. The 14th Amendment is firmly in place and enforced. There is nothing for it's advocates to ask for. Children born in the USA, the kids you call anchor babies, a US citizens and no one of authority questions it in a legal or legislative forum or recognized manner. It is an argument being made by a non lawyer businessman running for President and his followers. Very few if any experts in constitutional law support his concept. Claims the 14th Amendment can be interpreted differently then it has for over 150 years are just political rhetoric and at this point in time legally meaningless.

Exactly- what Trump and others call 'anchor babies' are called 'United States citizens' on their passports.

 

[bendog]

What's sort of funny is that Boss's argument of common law and Jurisdiction = Obedience actually supports birthright citizenship.

see the first paragraph of Sec II

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

 

[Boss]

It is absolutely a birth right- for everyone who is born within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Not what the 14th says. Sorry!

 

[Boss]

What's sort of funny is that Boss's argument of common law and Jurisdiction = Obedience actually supports birthright citizenship.

see the first paragraph of Sec II

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

No, Boss did not say "obedience" and of course my opinion coincides with SCOTUS rulings. That's because I am right about this and you are wrong... this is about when the thread starts getting bizarre and we see pinheads like you trying to manipulate the debate to where you are arguing MY position and I am arguing some nonsense that I never said... are we 'bout there?

Jurisdiction... for the final time... means "owing allegiance to" and that is the context for "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment. It doesn't say "within the jurisdiction" ...it says "subject to" and that is also very important.

 

[paddymurphy]

The language of the 14th Amendment doesn't get much clearer

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend it to apply to 'all persons born...in the United States'- who were subject to the laws of the United States(jurisdiction) they certainly could have written it so it didn't apply to all persons born in the United States who are subject to the laws of the United States.

At the time it was written they never contemplated an illegal invasion using anchor babies. When looking at past legislation we need to look at the intent of the writers and what they were dealing with at the time.

When looking at the U.S. Constitution we first look at the language. And the language couldn't be much clearer.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend it to apply to 'all persons born...in the United States'- who were subject to the laws of the United States(jurisdiction) they certainly could have written it so it didn't apply to all persons born in the United States who are subject to the laws of the United States.

Rather than trying to make the 14th Amendment say something it doesn't- why aren't you trying to change the Constitution to fix what you consider to be the problem?

Cannot be done by legislation. Thought you understood that the only way you can change the constitution is to change the constitution.

yes, the language is clear. It also did not comtemplate the current situation with millions of illegals and anchor babies being used to gain citizenship for illegal parents.

the 14th was put in place to give citizenship to freed slaves, nothing more. If they had contemplated the current situation they would have included language limiting its application to freed slaves.

I agree that an update is needed and if Trump becomes president it will get done.

And what part of the Constitution would give President Trump (gag) the authority to amend the constitution all by his lone self?

None. I didn't say he could do it on his own. I said it would get done. maybe by constitutional amendment, maybe by legislation.

 

[Syriusly]

It didn't apply to certain Native Americans-

But hold on... if it applies to anyone born on US soil by the sole virtue of being born on US soil... why would it NOT apply to some Native Americans, born on the same US soil? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here, like a typical liberal always does.

YES-- Born + Jurisdiction = Citizen, but an illegal alien is not subject to the jurisdiction. Just as certain Native Americans before 1923 and passage of a citizenship act specifically for them.

WTF? Subject to the jurisdiction of the state. If an illegal alien commits a crime he can be prosecuted here.

You need to read the link I posted, you are misinterpreting "jurisdiction" for the geography context and that is NOT what it means here. And the problem is, the SCOTUS has reams and reams of deliberation on precisely what this clause means and what "jurisdiction" means in this context.

We go back to your same example in 1890... If a Native American walked off his tribal lands and killed a white man, he would be subject to US law. It would not matter that he was a Native American who was not a citizen. Everyone is already assumed subjects of US law if they are in the US... some will argue that diplomats aren't, but they are as well... they can't go on a killing spree then claim diplomatic immunity... it doesn't work that way. So this is not about geography.

Jurisdiction in this context, means (and always has meant) allegiance owed. An illegal alien's allegiance is still owed to his home country, and by virtue, his minor offspring children are as well because they are in his custody. The Wong case is not about ILLEGAL immigrants.

Jurisdiction means the same thing in every legal context- it doesn't simply change context within the 14th Amendment because you want it to.

There’s not much wiggle room in the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment, but Texas, the appellants, tried:


In appellants’ view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws.


Writing for the majority, J. Brennan rejected that argument saying it was not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Writing for the four dissenting Justices, J. Burger concurs on this point:


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.


Opponents of birthright citizenship for children of undocumented aliens often claim that these children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and hence, should not be granted citizenship.


In footnote 10 (dicta?) of Plyler the Court addresses the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizenship Clause by citing Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark who noted 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.”


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.

Plyler v. Doe (1982) and Jurisdiction

 

[Syriusly]

What's sort of funny is that Boss's argument of common law and Jurisdiction = Obedience actually supports birthright citizenship.

see the first paragraph of Sec II

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

No, Boss did not say "obedience" and of course my opinion coincides with SCOTUS rulings. That's because I am right about this and you are wrong....

Yet the courts and the Executive branch consistently disagree with you.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

 

[paddymurphy]

What's sort of funny is that Boss's argument of common law and Jurisdiction = Obedience actually supports birthright citizenship.

see the first paragraph of Sec II

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

No, Boss did not say "obedience" and of course my opinion coincides with SCOTUS rulings. That's because I am right about this and you are wrong... this is about when the thread starts getting bizarre and we see pinheads like you trying to manipulate the debate to where you are arguing MY position and I am arguing some nonsense that I never said... are we 'bout there?

Jurisdiction... for the final time... means "owing allegiance to" and that is the context for "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment. It doesn't say "within the jurisdiction" ...it says "subject to" and that is also very important.

" It doesn't say "within the jurisdiction" And yet, in Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court said they mean the same thing:

"The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, 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."

 

[Boss]

what Trump and others call 'anchor babies' are called 'United States citizens' on their passports.

Well no, that isn't what Trump said or what I've said. That's another left wing lie you want to spread because you simply don't know how to be honest anymore... it's okay, we're gonna fix you.

I would say... If someone is recognized by the US government as a citizen and they have a passport issued by said government, those persons are Constitutionally protected by the 14th because they are "subject to jurisdiction thereof" and have been duly recognized as such by the government.

That's not who Trump is talking about.

 

[bendog]

It didn't apply to certain Native Americans-

But hold on... if it applies to anyone born on US soil by the sole virtue of being born on US soil... why would it NOT apply to some Native Americans, born on the same US soil? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here, like a typical liberal always does.

YES-- Born + Jurisdiction = Citizen, but an illegal alien is not subject to the jurisdiction. Just as certain Native Americans before 1923 and passage of a citizenship act specifically for them.

WTF? Subject to the jurisdiction of the state. If an illegal alien commits a crime he can be prosecuted here.

You need to read the link I posted, you are misinterpreting "jurisdiction" for the geography context and that is NOT what it means here. And the problem is, the SCOTUS has reams and reams of deliberation on precisely what this clause means and what "jurisdiction" means in this context.

We go back to your same example in 1890... If a Native American walked off his tribal lands and killed a white man, he would be subject to US law. It would not matter that he was a Native American who was not a citizen. Everyone is already assumed subjects of US law if they are in the US... some will argue that diplomats aren't, but they are as well... they can't go on a killing spree then claim diplomatic immunity... it doesn't work that way. So this is not about geography.

Jurisdiction in this context, means (and always has meant) allegiance owed. An illegal alien's allegiance is still owed to his home country, and by virtue, his minor offspring children are as well because they are in his custody. The Wong case is not about ILLEGAL immigrants.

I did, and you failed. The Wong opinion discusses that common law English aliens owned an obligation to the crown. It's no different here. They must obey the law and even pay taxes.

You'd have better luck if you eschewed whatever RW sources you ascribe to. (-: In Wong, the alien parents never claimed citizenship, and there was no claim that a Chinese national who entered the US in violation of the Chinese Exclusion Act and who gave birth, gave birth to a US citizen. Thus, Wong is not factually on point to the birthright citizenship for kids born to illegal aliens. It's true, as I think Syriously pointed out, that Phyler v. Doe found Wong applied. What Phyler explicitly held is that an illegal alien IS SUBJECT TO STATE JURISDICTION. End of story. That is the only result possible from English common law and any sane reading of the 14th.

However, the issue in Phyler was not birthright citizenship. Rather, it was assumed children born here were citizens. What was at issue in Phyler was whether Texas had to provide educational services to children born elsewhere and illegally in this country.

I think you could rationally argue that the Supreme Court has not explicitly weighed in, and if Congress chose it could amend immigration laws to not recognize birthright citizenship, and then the Sup Court would have a crack at it.

 

[Boss]

What's sort of funny is that Boss's argument of common law and Jurisdiction = Obedience actually supports birthright citizenship.

see the first paragraph of Sec II

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

No, Boss did not say "obedience" and of course my opinion coincides with SCOTUS rulings. That's because I am right about this and you are wrong....

Yet the courts and the Executive branch consistently disagree with you.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

You are actually PROVING my point that this is a matter of statutory policy and not some Holy Protected 14th Amendment Right.

 

[bendog]

What's sort of funny is that Boss's argument of common law and Jurisdiction = Obedience actually supports birthright citizenship.

see the first paragraph of Sec II

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

No, Boss did not say "obedience" and of course my opinion coincides with SCOTUS rulings. That's because I am right about this and you are wrong....

Yet the courts and the Executive branch consistently disagree with you.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

Yeah, but the real issue was deportation of the alien mother. The Court just assumed birthright citizenship was settled.

 

[paddymurphy]

what Trump and others call 'anchor babies' are called 'United States citizens' on their passports.

Well no, that isn't what Trump said or what I've said. That's another left wing lie you want to spread because you simply don't know how to be honest anymore... it's okay, we're gonna fix you.

I would say... If someone is recognized by the US government as a citizen and they have a passport issued by said government, those persons are Constitutionally protected by the 14th because they are "subject to jurisdiction thereof" and have been duly recognized as such by the government.

That's not who Trump is talking about.

And since anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents status, are entitled to those passports and are recognized by every branch of the government as being US citizens, your serial posts arguing they are not citizens was because why? Are you finally admitting you have been convinced that your earlier posts were wrong?

 

[paddymurphy]

What's sort of funny is that Boss's argument of common law and Jurisdiction = Obedience actually supports birthright citizenship.

see the first paragraph of Sec II

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

No, Boss did not say "obedience" and of course my opinion coincides with SCOTUS rulings. That's because I am right about this and you are wrong....

Yet the courts and the Executive branch consistently disagree with you.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

You are actually PROVING my point that this is a matter of statutory policy and not some Holy Protected 14th Amendment Right.

How does a Supreme Court decision recognizing that it has been settled law for a century that a person born here is a citizen here have anything to do with a statutory policy?

 

[paddymurphy]

What's sort of funny is that Boss's argument of common law and Jurisdiction = Obedience actually supports birthright citizenship.

see the first paragraph of Sec II

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

No, Boss did not say "obedience" and of course my opinion coincides with SCOTUS rulings. That's because I am right about this and you are wrong....

Yet the courts and the Executive branch consistently disagree with you.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

Yeah, but the real issue was deportation of the alien mother. The Court just assumed birthright citizenship was settled.

The Court RECOGNIZED that birthright citizenship was settled; as they did in Pyler v. Doe. And in both cases, that view was unanimous.

 

[bendog]

What's sort of funny is that Boss's argument of common law and Jurisdiction = Obedience actually supports birthright citizenship.

see the first paragraph of Sec II

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

No, Boss did not say "obedience" and of course my opinion coincides with SCOTUS rulings. That's because I am right about this and you are wrong....

Yet the courts and the Executive branch consistently disagree with you.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

Yeah, but the real issue was deportation of the alien mother. The Court just assumed birthright citizenship was settled.

The Court RECOGNIZED that birthright citizenship was settled; as they did in Pyler v. Doe. And in both cases, that view was unanimous.

Well, if it's settled it's because of statutes and not an explicit Sup Ct case holding the 14th confers birthright citizenship.

 

[paddymurphy]

What's sort of funny is that Boss's argument of common law and Jurisdiction = Obedience actually supports birthright citizenship.

see the first paragraph of Sec II

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

No, Boss did not say "obedience" and of course my opinion coincides with SCOTUS rulings. That's because I am right about this and you are wrong....

Yet the courts and the Executive branch consistently disagree with you.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

Yeah, but the real issue was deportation of the alien mother. The Court just assumed birthright citizenship was settled.

The Court RECOGNIZED that birthright citizenship was settled; as they did in Pyler v. Doe. And in both cases, that view was unanimous.

Well, if it's settled it's because of statutes and not an explicit Sup Ct case holding the 14th confers birthright citizenship.

Good God, have you read a single post on this thread? Beginning with Wong Kim Ark and continuing through Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda, the United States Supreme Court has very clearly and explicitly held that the 14th Amendment DOES confer Birthright citizenship.

 

[bendog]

No, Boss did not say "obedience" and of course my opinion coincides with SCOTUS rulings. That's because I am right about this and you are wrong....

Yet the courts and the Executive branch consistently disagree with you.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

Yeah, but the real issue was deportation of the alien mother. The Court just assumed birthright citizenship was settled.

The Court RECOGNIZED that birthright citizenship was settled; as they did in Pyler v. Doe. And in both cases, that view was unanimous.

Well, if it's settled it's because of statutes and not an explicit Sup Ct case holding the 14th confers birthright citizenship.

Good God, have you read a single post on this thread? Beginning with Wong Kim Ark and continuing through Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda, the United States Supreme Court has very clearly and explicitly held that the 14th Amendment DOES confer Birthright citizenship.

God God, have you not read my posts on this thread. LOL

Look, there simply is NO US supreme court case explicitly holding either way on the issue of whether the 14th confers birthright citizenship to kids born to two people illegally here. We have assumed such is true. There are lower court holding. There are US statutes.

Frankly, I don't see any change coming on the horizon, however. The chances of the Congress actually changing the laws are ... slimmer than none.

Boss it nuts, however.

 

[Camp]

No, Boss did not say "obedience" and of course my opinion coincides with SCOTUS rulings. That's because I am right about this and you are wrong....

Yet the courts and the Executive branch consistently disagree with you.

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

Yeah, but the real issue was deportation of the alien mother. The Court just assumed birthright citizenship was settled.

The Court RECOGNIZED that birthright citizenship was settled; as they did in Pyler v. Doe. And in both cases, that view was unanimous.

Well, if it's settled it's because of statutes and not an explicit Sup Ct case holding the 14th confers birthright citizenship.

Good God, have you read a single post on this thread? Beginning with Wong Kim Ark and continuing through Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda, the United States Supreme Court has very clearly and explicitly held that the 14th Amendment DOES confer Birthright citizenship.

Some just refuse to admit Der Fuhrer Drumpf is wrong and running a scam.