Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Uncensored2008]

Say you.

So say we all.

{Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.}

The problem you have is that of domicile. Because the person has no legal right to be in the nation, they are not subject to the jurisdiction and thus not citizens.

It's amusing that most pro-illegal promoters use Wong Kim ARK for their fallacious arguments, rather than the 14th - no one actually thinks the 14th establishes anchor baboes.

The millions of people who have U.S. passports, who were born in the United States to parents who were not here legally disagree with you.

As does the Supreme Court.

Why is it that you leftists cannot grasp the distinction between "legal" and "illegal."

Oh, that SCOTUS has not ruled on the issue, so try again.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Trump's running a scam, but the reason it works is that birthright citizenship is more than a little ... wrong. Seriously, why would any rational country reward a person for violating its immigration laws by conferring citizenship on their offspring? And not just citizenship, but free healthcare, food stamps, and in some cases SSI?

The legal term for birthright citizenship is jus soli, or "right of the soil."

US
Canada
Mexico

Are among the 30+ nations who do


Birthright citizenship is a definitive quality of New World democracies—countries which have, for centuries, prided themselves on strong multicultural identities; and championed social, political, economic, and infrastructural foundations quite literally laid down by immigrants and their descendants.


Birthright citizenship is a hallmark of New World democracies

We and Canada are the only developed nations practicing the absurdity.

So, Mexico, Brazil and the other nations of South America, all of whom recognize birthright citizenship, are not "developed"? Bull.

 

[paddymurphy]

Say you.

So say we all.

{Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.}

The problem you have is that of domicile. Because the person has no legal right to be in the nation, they are not subject to the jurisdiction and thus not citizens.

It's amusing that most pro-illegal promoters use Wong Kim ARK for their fallacious arguments, rather than the 14th - no one actually thinks the 14th establishes anchor baboes.

The millions of people who have U.S. passports, who were born in the United States to parents who were not here legally disagree with you.

As does the Supreme Court.

Why is it that you leftists cannot grasp the distinction between "legal" and "illegal."

Oh, that SCOTUS has not ruled on the issue, so try again.

And yet, as I cited in response to another of your idiotic posts, the Supreme Court in Wong Kim held, very clearly, that the words "subject to the jurisdiction of" means the same as "within the jurisdiction."

 

[paddymurphy]

Say you.

So say we all.

{Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.}

The problem you have is that of domicile. Because the person has no legal right to be in the nation, they are not subject to the jurisdiction and thus not citizens.

It's amusing that most pro-illegal promoters use Wong Kim ARK for their fallacious arguments, rather than the 14th - no one actually thinks the 14th establishes anchor baboes.

The millions of people who have U.S. passports, who were born in the United States to parents who were not here legally disagree with you.

As does the Supreme Court.

Why is it that you leftists cannot grasp the distinction between "legal" and "illegal."

Oh, that SCOTUS has not ruled on the issue, so try again.

"Why is it that you leftists cannot grasp the distinction between "legal" and "illegal."" So, if they are here legally they are not subject to our laws? To our jurisdiction? If they are not subject to our laws, they could not be illegal, then, could they?

 

[paddymurphy]

Trump is one of two things,

a. genuinely an idiot

b. or in a zone where he doesn't think there's anything he can say that will damage him.

...or maybe both...

It is amazing what he gets away with and republicans tremble in fear

The establishment Republicans are smart to be afraid, the Democrats would also be afraid if they aren't too stupid.

Afraid of what? Trump as the nominee will lead to a landslide for any democrat nominated.

keep wishing.

For Trump to run? As either an independent or a Republican? All democrats are wishing for one of those.

 

[bendog]

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.

Trump's running a scam, but the reason it works is that birthright citizenship is more than a little ... wrong. Seriously, why would any rational country reward a person for violating its immigration laws by conferring citizenship on their offspring? And not just citizenship, but free healthcare, food stamps, and in some cases SSI?

The legal term for birthright citizenship is jus soli, or "right of the soil."

US
Canada
Mexico

Are among the 30+ nations who do


Birthright citizenship is a definitive quality of New World democracies—countries which have, for centuries, prided themselves on strong multicultural identities; and championed social, political, economic, and infrastructural foundations quite literally laid down by immigrants and their descendants.


Birthright citizenship is a hallmark of New World democracies

We and Canada are the only developed nations practicing the absurdity.

So, Mexico, Brazil and the other nations of South America, all of whom recognize birthright citizenship, are not "developed"? Bull.

Well, we ain't rushing to trade our social benefits for theirs, but you ignore this fact because it is inconvenient to your preconceived notion

 

[paddymurphy]

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Roberts rules on the basis of what he thinks popular, with contempt for the law.

They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born.

Really?

Care to offer a cite to case law?

Since our founding, citizenship was conferred on anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The 14th gave that principal the force of Constitutional law; meaning it cannot be disturbed by Congress or any other legislative body. Much like Dred Scott has to be overturned by Constitutional Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim also requires a constitutional amendment to change it.

Complete nonsense, When Eisenhower conducted Operation Wetback, the rule was that if a child was born to those illegally in the nation, the child could not be a citizen as the parent was neither a naturalized nor natural born citizen.

The 14th simply does not confer citizenship on anchor babies.

The idea that illegals could game the system by giving birth in American was part of Teddy Kennedy's attack on America in 1965. It came about from the same group that ensured third world peasants rather than educated Europeans be the majority of immigrants.

{
The case law used by the proponents of "Birthright Citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies" comes from Wong Kim ARK 1898. The US Supreme Court in that case did determine that the allegiance for illegal immigrant parents is based on the words "legal domicile".

Since these parents do not have "legal domicile" in the U.S., therefore neither do their children, and conclusively they are therefore also not under the "jurisdiction" of the United States- the very word (jurisdiction) that is misinterpreted by the proponents of "birthright citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies".

To further enlighten the left leaning proponents of these children to be granted automatic U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil, the term "Anchor Babies" was not invented by the "Right". It comes from the 1965 Immigration Act which states that: "they (anchor babies) act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent residency in the United States". And further more by federal law, these babies born here by illegals must wait until they are over 21 to sponsor parents or foreign relatives for admission to the United States. }

Anchor Babies And The 14th Amendment - Chattanoogan.com

From the case, Wong Kim Ark, that you did not read:

"There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."

More:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying:

Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of [p659] that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.
2 Cranch 64, 119.

(See there: either you are a citizen because you were born here or you become one through naturalization).

In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."

And then there is this:
"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
(Thus, the 14th Amendment did not change the law that had existed from the nation;s founding which conferred citizenship, consistent with centuries of English common law, "by the fact of birth within the United States." If you disagree, explain why those words do not mean what they say.

And then:
"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court.

Finally, dumbass, reconcile this from Wong Kim Ark:

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality." with your claims otherwise.

To the extent that the INS under Eisenhower did deport the children of illegals who were born here, they broke the law. As for the rest, your claims are moronic and conflict with settled law.

Ike didn't necessarily break the law because Immigration statutes didn't confer birthright citizenship until sometime around 1965

Another idiot heard from. Birthright citizenship has existed in this nation since its founding. That is what Wong Kim Ark pointed out in concluding that the framers of the 14th meant that it conferred citizenship on anyone born here other than those specifically not subject to our jurisdiction; diplomats and invading soldiers.

Like it did here: "The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage.

 

[bendog]

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Roberts rules on the basis of what he thinks popular, with contempt for the law.

They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born.

Really?

Care to offer a cite to case law?

Since our founding, citizenship was conferred on anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The 14th gave that principal the force of Constitutional law; meaning it cannot be disturbed by Congress or any other legislative body. Much like Dred Scott has to be overturned by Constitutional Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim also requires a constitutional amendment to change it.

Complete nonsense, When Eisenhower conducted Operation Wetback, the rule was that if a child was born to those illegally in the nation, the child could not be a citizen as the parent was neither a naturalized nor natural born citizen.

The 14th simply does not confer citizenship on anchor babies.

The idea that illegals could game the system by giving birth in American was part of Teddy Kennedy's attack on America in 1965. It came about from the same group that ensured third world peasants rather than educated Europeans be the majority of immigrants.

{
The case law used by the proponents of "Birthright Citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies" comes from Wong Kim ARK 1898. The US Supreme Court in that case did determine that the allegiance for illegal immigrant parents is based on the words "legal domicile".

Since these parents do not have "legal domicile" in the U.S., therefore neither do their children, and conclusively they are therefore also not under the "jurisdiction" of the United States- the very word (jurisdiction) that is misinterpreted by the proponents of "birthright citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies".

To further enlighten the left leaning proponents of these children to be granted automatic U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil, the term "Anchor Babies" was not invented by the "Right". It comes from the 1965 Immigration Act which states that: "they (anchor babies) act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent residency in the United States". And further more by federal law, these babies born here by illegals must wait until they are over 21 to sponsor parents or foreign relatives for admission to the United States. }

Anchor Babies And The 14th Amendment - Chattanoogan.com

From the case, Wong Kim Ark, that you did not read:

"There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."

More:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying:

Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of [p659] that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.
2 Cranch 64, 119.

(See there: either you are a citizen because you were born here or you become one through naturalization).

In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."

And then there is this:
"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
(Thus, the 14th Amendment did not change the law that had existed from the nation;s founding which conferred citizenship, consistent with centuries of English common law, "by the fact of birth within the United States." If you disagree, explain why those words do not mean what they say.

And then:
"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court.

Finally, dumbass, reconcile this from Wong Kim Ark:

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality." with your claims otherwise.

To the extent that the INS under Eisenhower did deport the children of illegals who were born here, they broke the law. As for the rest, your claims are moronic and conflict with settled law.

However, the supreme court was not considering that question

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: '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.' - See more at: FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

In short, neither English common law nor Wong contemplated parents ILLEGALLY in the US

If you read the case in its entirety, you would understand that whether the parent were here legally or not would not make a difference. The Court very specifically held that the only tow exceptions to birthright citizenship would be the children of diplomats or of invading soldiers. In Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda the Supreme Court was faced with at claim of citizenship by the child of person here illegally and, in both cases, cited to Wong for the principle of birthright citizenship. The Court in Wong was asked to construe the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and concluded that it meant "within the jurisdiction of..." the United States. You cannot argue that person here without permission are not subject to our jurisdiction. It is settled law.

That is simple tripe. In reading any legal opinion, the FIRST thing you do is answer the question: what was the issue the court was addressing.

 

[paddymurphy]

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

Trump's running a scam, but the reason it works is that birthright citizenship is more than a little ... wrong. Seriously, why would any rational country reward a person for violating its immigration laws by conferring citizenship on their offspring? And not just citizenship, but free healthcare, food stamps, and in some cases SSI?

The legal term for birthright citizenship is jus soli, or "right of the soil."

US
Canada
Mexico

Are among the 30+ nations who do


Birthright citizenship is a definitive quality of New World democracies—countries which have, for centuries, prided themselves on strong multicultural identities; and championed social, political, economic, and infrastructural foundations quite literally laid down by immigrants and their descendants.


Birthright citizenship is a hallmark of New World democracies

We and Canada are the only developed nations practicing the absurdity.

So, Mexico, Brazil and the other nations of South America, all of whom recognize birthright citizenship, are not "developed"? Bull.

Well, we ain't rushing to trade our social benefits for theirs, but you ignore this fact because it is inconvenient to your preconceived notion

What preconceived notion? I simply have read and understand the Supreme Court's holding in Wong Kim. I never offered any opinion on whether it is time to change that or not.

 

[paddymurphy]

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Roberts rules on the basis of what he thinks popular, with contempt for the law.

They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born.

Really?

Care to offer a cite to case law?

Since our founding, citizenship was conferred on anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The 14th gave that principal the force of Constitutional law; meaning it cannot be disturbed by Congress or any other legislative body. Much like Dred Scott has to be overturned by Constitutional Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim also requires a constitutional amendment to change it.

Complete nonsense, When Eisenhower conducted Operation Wetback, the rule was that if a child was born to those illegally in the nation, the child could not be a citizen as the parent was neither a naturalized nor natural born citizen.

The 14th simply does not confer citizenship on anchor babies.

The idea that illegals could game the system by giving birth in American was part of Teddy Kennedy's attack on America in 1965. It came about from the same group that ensured third world peasants rather than educated Europeans be the majority of immigrants.

{
The case law used by the proponents of "Birthright Citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies" comes from Wong Kim ARK 1898. The US Supreme Court in that case did determine that the allegiance for illegal immigrant parents is based on the words "legal domicile".

Since these parents do not have "legal domicile" in the U.S., therefore neither do their children, and conclusively they are therefore also not under the "jurisdiction" of the United States- the very word (jurisdiction) that is misinterpreted by the proponents of "birthright citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies".

To further enlighten the left leaning proponents of these children to be granted automatic U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil, the term "Anchor Babies" was not invented by the "Right". It comes from the 1965 Immigration Act which states that: "they (anchor babies) act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent residency in the United States". And further more by federal law, these babies born here by illegals must wait until they are over 21 to sponsor parents or foreign relatives for admission to the United States. }

Anchor Babies And The 14th Amendment - Chattanoogan.com

From the case, Wong Kim Ark, that you did not read:

"There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."

More:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying:

Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of [p659] that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.
2 Cranch 64, 119.

(See there: either you are a citizen because you were born here or you become one through naturalization).

In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."

And then there is this:
"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
(Thus, the 14th Amendment did not change the law that had existed from the nation;s founding which conferred citizenship, consistent with centuries of English common law, "by the fact of birth within the United States." If you disagree, explain why those words do not mean what they say.

And then:
"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court.

Finally, dumbass, reconcile this from Wong Kim Ark:

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality." with your claims otherwise.

To the extent that the INS under Eisenhower did deport the children of illegals who were born here, they broke the law. As for the rest, your claims are moronic and conflict with settled law.

However, the supreme court was not considering that question

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: '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.' - See more at: FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

In short, neither English common law nor Wong contemplated parents ILLEGALLY in the US

If you read the case in its entirety, you would understand that whether the parent were here legally or not would not make a difference. The Court very specifically held that the only tow exceptions to birthright citizenship would be the children of diplomats or of invading soldiers. In Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda the Supreme Court was faced with at claim of citizenship by the child of person here illegally and, in both cases, cited to Wong for the principle of birthright citizenship. The Court in Wong was asked to construe the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and concluded that it meant "within the jurisdiction of..." the United States. You cannot argue that person here without permission are not subject to our jurisdiction. It is settled law.

That is simple tripe. In reading any legal opinion, the FIRST thing you do is answer the question: what was the issue the court was addressing.

Being someone who reads legal opinions for a living; and who has written about 500 of them for judges for whom I have worked, I understand the difference between facts essential to a holding and those that are not. The Supreme Court had to determine what the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant. That was the only question they had to answer since Wong was born in the United States. They found he was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States by applying the longstanding legal principles governing that; principles that existed at Common Law in England and in this Country from its founding. They cited to supreme Court decisions from shortly after the ratification of the Constitution that discussed this. You are way out of your league here in trying to discuss legal issues you have a passing familiarity with.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Roberts rules on the basis of what he thinks popular, with contempt for the law.

They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born.

Really?

Care to offer a cite to case law?

Since our founding, citizenship was conferred on anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The 14th gave that principal the force of Constitutional law; meaning it cannot be disturbed by Congress or any other legislative body. Much like Dred Scott has to be overturned by Constitutional Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim also requires a constitutional amendment to change it.

Complete nonsense, When Eisenhower conducted Operation Wetback, the rule was that if a child was born to those illegally in the nation, the child could not be a citizen as the parent was neither a naturalized nor natural born citizen.

The 14th simply does not confer citizenship on anchor babies.

The idea that illegals could game the system by giving birth in American was part of Teddy Kennedy's attack on America in 1965. It came about from the same group that ensured third world peasants rather than educated Europeans be the majority of immigrants.

{
The case law used by the proponents of "Birthright Citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies" comes from Wong Kim ARK 1898. The US Supreme Court in that case did determine that the allegiance for illegal immigrant parents is based on the words "legal domicile".

Since these parents do not have "legal domicile" in the U.S., therefore neither do their children, and conclusively they are therefore also not under the "jurisdiction" of the United States- the very word (jurisdiction) that is misinterpreted by the proponents of "birthright citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies".

To further enlighten the left leaning proponents of these children to be granted automatic U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil, the term "Anchor Babies" was not invented by the "Right". It comes from the 1965 Immigration Act which states that: "they (anchor babies) act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent residency in the United States". And further more by federal law, these babies born here by illegals must wait until they are over 21 to sponsor parents or foreign relatives for admission to the United States. }

Anchor Babies And The 14th Amendment - Chattanoogan.com

From the case, Wong Kim Ark, that you did not read:

"There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."

More:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying:

Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of [p659] that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.
2 Cranch 64, 119.

(See there: either you are a citizen because you were born here or you become one through naturalization).

In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."

And then there is this:
"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
(Thus, the 14th Amendment did not change the law that had existed from the nation;s founding which conferred citizenship, consistent with centuries of English common law, "by the fact of birth within the United States." If you disagree, explain why those words do not mean what they say.

And then:
"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court.

Finally, dumbass, reconcile this from Wong Kim Ark:

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality." with your claims otherwise.

To the extent that the INS under Eisenhower did deport the children of illegals who were born here, they broke the law. As for the rest, your claims are moronic and conflict with settled law.

Where you become disingenuous is in failing to note that the parents in Wong Kim Ark were in the country legally.

You promoters of illegal immigration refuse to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration.

 

[paddymurphy]

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Roberts rules on the basis of what he thinks popular, with contempt for the law.

They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born.

Really?

Care to offer a cite to case law?

Since our founding, citizenship was conferred on anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The 14th gave that principal the force of Constitutional law; meaning it cannot be disturbed by Congress or any other legislative body. Much like Dred Scott has to be overturned by Constitutional Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim also requires a constitutional amendment to change it.

Complete nonsense, When Eisenhower conducted Operation Wetback, the rule was that if a child was born to those illegally in the nation, the child could not be a citizen as the parent was neither a naturalized nor natural born citizen.

The 14th simply does not confer citizenship on anchor babies.

The idea that illegals could game the system by giving birth in American was part of Teddy Kennedy's attack on America in 1965. It came about from the same group that ensured third world peasants rather than educated Europeans be the majority of immigrants.

{
The case law used by the proponents of "Birthright Citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies" comes from Wong Kim ARK 1898. The US Supreme Court in that case did determine that the allegiance for illegal immigrant parents is based on the words "legal domicile".

Since these parents do not have "legal domicile" in the U.S., therefore neither do their children, and conclusively they are therefore also not under the "jurisdiction" of the United States- the very word (jurisdiction) that is misinterpreted by the proponents of "birthright citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies".

To further enlighten the left leaning proponents of these children to be granted automatic U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil, the term "Anchor Babies" was not invented by the "Right". It comes from the 1965 Immigration Act which states that: "they (anchor babies) act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent residency in the United States". And further more by federal law, these babies born here by illegals must wait until they are over 21 to sponsor parents or foreign relatives for admission to the United States. }

Anchor Babies And The 14th Amendment - Chattanoogan.com

From the case, Wong Kim Ark, that you did not read:

"There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."

More:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying:

Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of [p659] that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.
2 Cranch 64, 119.

(See there: either you are a citizen because you were born here or you become one through naturalization).

In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."

And then there is this:
"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
(Thus, the 14th Amendment did not change the law that had existed from the nation;s founding which conferred citizenship, consistent with centuries of English common law, "by the fact of birth within the United States." If you disagree, explain why those words do not mean what they say.

And then:
"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court.

Finally, dumbass, reconcile this from Wong Kim Ark:

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality." with your claims otherwise.

To the extent that the INS under Eisenhower did deport the children of illegals who were born here, they broke the law. As for the rest, your claims are moronic and conflict with settled law.

However, the supreme court was not considering that question

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: '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.' - See more at: FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

In short, neither English common law nor Wong contemplated parents ILLEGALLY in the US

If you read the case in its entirety, you would understand that whether the parent were here legally or not would not make a difference. The Court very specifically held that the only tow exceptions to birthright citizenship would be the children of diplomats or of invading soldiers. In Plyler v. Doe and INS v. Rios-Pineda the Supreme Court was faced with at claim of citizenship by the child of person here illegally and, in both cases, cited to Wong for the principle of birthright citizenship. The Court in Wong was asked to construe the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and concluded that it meant "within the jurisdiction of..." the United States. You cannot argue that person here without permission are not subject to our jurisdiction. It is settled law.

That is simple tripe. In reading any legal opinion, the FIRST thing you do is answer the question: what was the issue the court was addressing.

Where, in the opinion, does the Court hold that to have a domicile, one has to be legally present? Where does the Court differentiate between those here legally and those here illegally?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Roberts rules on the basis of what he thinks popular, with contempt for the law.

They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born.

Really?

Care to offer a cite to case law?

Since our founding, citizenship was conferred on anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The 14th gave that principal the force of Constitutional law; meaning it cannot be disturbed by Congress or any other legislative body. Much like Dred Scott has to be overturned by Constitutional Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim also requires a constitutional amendment to change it.

Complete nonsense, When Eisenhower conducted Operation Wetback, the rule was that if a child was born to those illegally in the nation, the child could not be a citizen as the parent was neither a naturalized nor natural born citizen.

The 14th simply does not confer citizenship on anchor babies.

The idea that illegals could game the system by giving birth in American was part of Teddy Kennedy's attack on America in 1965. It came about from the same group that ensured third world peasants rather than educated Europeans be the majority of immigrants.

{
The case law used by the proponents of "Birthright Citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies" comes from Wong Kim ARK 1898. The US Supreme Court in that case did determine that the allegiance for illegal immigrant parents is based on the words "legal domicile".

Since these parents do not have "legal domicile" in the U.S., therefore neither do their children, and conclusively they are therefore also not under the "jurisdiction" of the United States- the very word (jurisdiction) that is misinterpreted by the proponents of "birthright citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies".

To further enlighten the left leaning proponents of these children to be granted automatic U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil, the term "Anchor Babies" was not invented by the "Right". It comes from the 1965 Immigration Act which states that: "they (anchor babies) act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent residency in the United States". And further more by federal law, these babies born here by illegals must wait until they are over 21 to sponsor parents or foreign relatives for admission to the United States. }

Anchor Babies And The 14th Amendment - Chattanoogan.com

You are a couple of days late with that claptrap! It's been debunked multiple times. But you have added a new twist in your post I've not seen used until now.

You wrote the following in the post to which I'm replying:
"The case law used by the proponents of "Birthright Citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies" comes from Wong Kim ARK 1898. The US Supreme Court in that case did determine that the allegiance for illegal immigrant parents is based on the words "legal domicile"." [Emphasis Added]

Referring to the underlined phrases, can you cite that in the decision because in the 20-30 or more readings of that case I've done over the years, I've never read a thing about the phrases "allegiance for illegal immigrant parents" and "legal domicile" can be found neither in the Syllabus, the Decision, or the Dissent. Hey, I went back and they're still no hint of what you claim in US v. Wong!

Lawrence, what does this fine contestant get for playing "Let's baffle with Bullshit" today?

I'm thinking you really need to formulate your feces, son!

 

[Uncensored2008]

" It comes from the 1965 Immigration Act which states that: "they (anchor babies) act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent residency in the United States""

Those words appear no where in the 1965 immigration act, you fucking liar. And your source is a latter to the editor to the Chattanoogan?

He is wrong on that - not sure how your emotional outburst is relevant. An editorial not penned by me has no power to make be a "fucking liar," regardless of how desperately you need illegals to keep your filthy party in power.

 

[paddymurphy]

The SCOTUS rules on the basis of the Constitution.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Roberts rules on the basis of what he thinks popular, with contempt for the law.

They have ruled that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than continue the common law tradition that defined a citizen by where they were born.

Really?

Care to offer a cite to case law?

Since our founding, citizenship was conferred on anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The 14th gave that principal the force of Constitutional law; meaning it cannot be disturbed by Congress or any other legislative body. Much like Dred Scott has to be overturned by Constitutional Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim also requires a constitutional amendment to change it.

Complete nonsense, When Eisenhower conducted Operation Wetback, the rule was that if a child was born to those illegally in the nation, the child could not be a citizen as the parent was neither a naturalized nor natural born citizen.

The 14th simply does not confer citizenship on anchor babies.

The idea that illegals could game the system by giving birth in American was part of Teddy Kennedy's attack on America in 1965. It came about from the same group that ensured third world peasants rather than educated Europeans be the majority of immigrants.

{
The case law used by the proponents of "Birthright Citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies" comes from Wong Kim ARK 1898. The US Supreme Court in that case did determine that the allegiance for illegal immigrant parents is based on the words "legal domicile".

Since these parents do not have "legal domicile" in the U.S., therefore neither do their children, and conclusively they are therefore also not under the "jurisdiction" of the United States- the very word (jurisdiction) that is misinterpreted by the proponents of "birthright citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies".

To further enlighten the left leaning proponents of these children to be granted automatic U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil, the term "Anchor Babies" was not invented by the "Right". It comes from the 1965 Immigration Act which states that: "they (anchor babies) act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent residency in the United States". And further more by federal law, these babies born here by illegals must wait until they are over 21 to sponsor parents or foreign relatives for admission to the United States. }

Anchor Babies And The 14th Amendment - Chattanoogan.com

From the case, Wong Kim Ark, that you did not read:

"There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."

More:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying:

Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of [p659] that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.
2 Cranch 64, 119.

(See there: either you are a citizen because you were born here or you become one through naturalization).

In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."

And then there is this:
"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
(Thus, the 14th Amendment did not change the law that had existed from the nation;s founding which conferred citizenship, consistent with centuries of English common law, "by the fact of birth within the United States." If you disagree, explain why those words do not mean what they say.

And then:
"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court.

Finally, dumbass, reconcile this from Wong Kim Ark:

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality." with your claims otherwise.

To the extent that the INS under Eisenhower did deport the children of illegals who were born here, they broke the law. As for the rest, your claims are moronic and conflict with settled law.

Where you become disingenuous is in failing to note that the parents in Wong Kim Ark were in the country legally.

You promoters of illegal immigration refuse to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration.

It does not matter whether they were here legally in construing the phrase. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". You are incapable of reading the opinion in its entirety. And you ignore the two supreme Court decision since that recognized the citizenship of the children of illegal immigrants; a recognition that was unanimous both times.

 

[bendog]

Trump's running a scam, but the reason it works is that birthright citizenship is more than a little ... wrong. Seriously, why would any rational country reward a person for violating its immigration laws by conferring citizenship on their offspring? And not just citizenship, but free healthcare, food stamps, and in some cases SSI?

The legal term for birthright citizenship is jus soli, or "right of the soil."

US
Canada
Mexico

Are among the 30+ nations who do


Birthright citizenship is a definitive quality of New World democracies—countries which have, for centuries, prided themselves on strong multicultural identities; and championed social, political, economic, and infrastructural foundations quite literally laid down by immigrants and their descendants.


Birthright citizenship is a hallmark of New World democracies

We and Canada are the only developed nations practicing the absurdity.

So, Mexico, Brazil and the other nations of South America, all of whom recognize birthright citizenship, are not "developed"? Bull.

Well, we ain't rushing to trade our social benefits for theirs, but you ignore this fact because it is inconvenient to your preconceived notion

What preconceived notion? I simply have read and understand the Supreme Court's holding in Wong Kim. I never offered any opinion on whether it is time to change that or not.

your understanding in preconceived, and you have to resort to patronizing insults such as "if you had read the opinion." I have, and I assure you I have the education and professional experience to do so better than you.

It may be that Wong is dispositive of birthright citizenship, but it may not be. Simply put, the effect of the illegal status of the parents was never put to the court, and it cannot be assumed the Court somehow magically grasped it was addressing that issue.

 

[paddymurphy]

" It comes from the 1965 Immigration Act which states that: "they (anchor babies) act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent residency in the United States""

Those words appear no where in the 1965 immigration act, you fucking liar. And your source is a latter to the editor to the Chattanoogan?

He is wrong on that - not sure how your emotional outburst is relevant. An editorial not penned by me has no power to make be a "fucking liar," regardless of how desperately you need illegals to keep your filthy party in power.

You quoted it! You posted it as if it were true.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Why is it that you leftists cannot grasp the distinction between "legal" and "illegal."" So, if they are here legally they are not subject to our laws? To our jurisdiction? If they are not subject to our laws, they could not be illegal, then, could they?

Is a POW under the jurisdiction of the USA?

In your desire to import illegal aliens, you wander into rank absurdity.

 

[paddymurphy]

The legal term for birthright citizenship is jus soli, or "right of the soil."

US
Canada
Mexico

Are among the 30+ nations who do


Birthright citizenship is a definitive quality of New World democracies—countries which have, for centuries, prided themselves on strong multicultural identities; and championed social, political, economic, and infrastructural foundations quite literally laid down by immigrants and their descendants.


Birthright citizenship is a hallmark of New World democracies

We and Canada are the only developed nations practicing the absurdity.

So, Mexico, Brazil and the other nations of South America, all of whom recognize birthright citizenship, are not "developed"? Bull.

Well, we ain't rushing to trade our social benefits for theirs, but you ignore this fact because it is inconvenient to your preconceived notion

What preconceived notion? I simply have read and understand the Supreme Court's holding in Wong Kim. I never offered any opinion on whether it is time to change that or not.

your understanding in preconceived, and you have to resort to patronizing insults such as "if you had read the opinion." I have, and I assure you I have the education and professional experience to do so better than you.

It may be that Wong is dispositive of birthright citizenship, but it may not be. Simply put, the effect of the illegal status of the parents was never put to the court, and it cannot be assumed the Court somehow magically grasped it was addressing that issue.

You have education and experience to do so better than me? So you are an attorney? You have practiced law for 25 years? You have written over 500 judicial opinions touching upon constitutional issues like this? If you have read it then explain how this ""The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage." does not mean that "citizenship is fixed by the place of nativity."? Or how this "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." Does not mean that being born "within the jurisdiction" means the same thing as "subject to the jurisdiction."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Is a POW under the jurisdiction of the USA?

If they are held in the US they are, but they would be treated by the military justice system, not the US civil or criminal systems.