Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Slyhunter]

ANY citizen from ANY country that comes here and does NOT renounce their citizenship from their country of origin may NOT become a U.S. citizen.

I came here and did not renounce my Canadian citizenship and became an American.

Fail. Again.

Then you're not truly an American.

 

[Defer09]

So Donald Trump wants to get rid of the 14th amendment and liberals want to get rid of the bill of rights. I wonder which is worse?

 

[Pogo]

So Donald Trump wants to get rid of the 14th amendment and liberals want to get rid of the bill of rights. I wonder which is worse?

I'd go with the Strawman.

Liberals wrote the Bill of Rights. And by the way, you're welcome.

 

[Pogo]

ANY citizen from ANY country that comes here and does NOT renounce their citizenship from their country of origin may NOT become a U.S. citizen.

I came here and did not renounce my Canadian citizenship and became an American.

Fail. Again.

Then you're not truly an American.

I've got many friends and co-workers with dual Canadian/US citizenship. And they're all truly Americans.

 

[Redfish]

yes, and the 14th conferred those on freed slaves. not on the child of a foreign citizen who comes to the US on one day to give birth.

This whole thing borders on ridiculous. Are you dems that desperate for voters? because thats what this is really about.

the Civil War amendments are pretty clear and concise.

yes, and the 14th is also very clear in its intent. Do you think that the writers of the 14th foresaw foreign women from mexico coming to the US to give birth so their kids could be americans and they could come to the US to care for them? of course not. This is foolishness.

it is an issue of federalism and separation of powers. the States no longer have any power over immigration since 1808; thus, no Constitutional basis to cognate the status of any Person from out of State or from out of state, usually.

the issue here is the intent of the people who wrote and codified the 14th amendment. I doubt seriously if there was any discussion of anchor babies at the time. The 14th is being misinterpreted today.

The 14th Amendment is being interpreted according to the actual language of the 14th Amendment.

The solution to fixing a Constitution you don't like is to amend it.

But you know that.

The language of the amendment is being misinterpreted. A new SCOTUS ruling could fix that.

 

[Redfish]

Is a POW under the jurisdiction of the USA?

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

Yes. A POW would be under the jurisdiction and, if one gave birth, that child would be a US citizen.

that is the most ridiculous post yet on this thread. you get the idiot award for the day.

Why?

Uhhh, duh, because he is an idiot?

That is not what I meant. What law determines that the child of a female prisoner of war born in the US or and/or under US jurisdiction would not be protected under the 14th Amendment?

The 14th was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves. That is all it was written for. The interpretation being given today is WRONG

 

[Redfish]

So Donald Trump wants to get rid of the 14th amendment and liberals want to get rid of the bill of rights. I wonder which is worse?

I'd go with the Strawman.

Liberals wrote the Bill of Rights. And by the way, you're welcome.

BS, the bill of rights was written by American patriots. Today's liberals are not patriots.

 

[Redfish]

ANY citizen from ANY country that comes here and does NOT renounce their citizenship from their country of origin may NOT become a U.S. citizen.

I came here and did not renounce my Canadian citizenship and became an American.

Fail. Again.

Then you're not truly an American.

I've got many friends and co-workers with dual Canadian/US citizenship. And they're all truly Americans.

do they pay taxes in both countries?

 

[easyt65]

Trump did NOT say the 14th Amendment is Un-Constitutional! He pointed out that the 14th Amendment does NOT say an illegal can walk across the border, have a baby, and that baby be automaticlaly considered a US citizen.

Trump accurately pointed out that while people / parties with agendas, those who have not read the ENTIRE 14th Amendment, and those who just ignorantly cling to what they are told have declared the 14th Amendment to say these babies are US Citizens, Constitutional and Legal Scholars and Judges, have affirmed this is NOT the case. If EMOTION superceded LAW then Liberals would be right on this, but it is NOT and they are NOT!

 

[Camp]

Trump did NOT say the 14th Amendment is Un-Constitutional! He pointed out that the 14th Amendment does NOT say an illegal can walk across the border, have a baby, and that baby be automaticlaly considered a US citizen.

Trump accurately pointed out that while people / parties with agendas, those who have not read the ENTIRE 14th Amendment, and those who just ignorantly cling to what they are told have declared the 14th Amendment to say these babies are US Citizens, Constitutional and Legal Scholars and Judges, have affirmed this is NOT the case. If EMOTION superceded LAW then Liberals would be right on this, but it is NOT and they are NOT!

We went through this yesterday. The whole Constitutional and Legal Scholars you are claiming support your contention and Trump's suggestion claim. So, show us who they are. Name some of those constitutional experts.

 

[easyt65]

Trump did NOT say the 14th Amendment is Un-Constitutional! He pointed out that the 14th Amendment does NOT say an illegal can walk across the border, have a baby, and that baby be automaticlaly considered a US citizen.

Trump accurately pointed out that while people / parties with agendas, those who have not read the ENTIRE 14th Amendment, and those who just ignorantly cling to what they are told have declared the 14th Amendment to say these babies are US Citizens, Constitutional and Legal Scholars and Judges, have affirmed this is NOT the case. If EMOTION superceded LAW then Liberals would be right on this, but it is NOT and they are NOT!

We went through this yesterday. The whole Constitutional and Legal Scholars you are claiming support your contention and Trump's suggestion claim. So, show us who they are. Name some of those constitutional experts.

Have you read what the author of the 14th Amendment wrote about it, about what his intent was? Or are you just another emotion-fueled liberal socialist progressive who seeks to assign YOUR definition onto things?

If you went over this yesterday then you had the opportunity to do some research and find the answer to your question yourself. Since you are asking me to do your homewwork for you that tells me you have not. In that case, why bother - you have made up your mind, will only argue against anything I post.

 

[Slyhunter]

ANY citizen from ANY country that comes here and does NOT renounce their citizenship from their country of origin may NOT become a U.S. citizen.

I came here and did not renounce my Canadian citizenship and became an American.

Fail. Again.

Then you're not truly an American.

I've got many friends and co-workers with dual Canadian/US citizenship. And they're all truly Americans.

You can't be loyal to two masters.

 

[paddymurphy]

Id

Yes. A POW would be under the jurisdiction and, if one gave birth, that child would be a US citizen.

that is the most ridiculous post yet on this thread. you get the idiot award for the day.

Why?

Uhhh, duh, because he is an idiot?

That is not what I meant. What law determines that the child of a female prisoner of war born in the US or and/or under US jurisdiction would not be protected under the 14th Amendment?

The 14th was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves. That is all it was written for. The interpretation being given today is WRONG

that If were true, why would they have debated and discussed Chinese and other foreigners? Like they did here:
Senator Howard’s brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:

“Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”[21]

This understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment – indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.

Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) – who would later vote against the entire constitutional amendment anyway – was the first to speak in opposition to extending birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amendment would effectively deprive states of the authority to expel persons of different races – in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California – by granting their children citizenship and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected especially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.[22]

In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:

“The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”

Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire predictions of foreign overpopulation, but explained that, although legally correct, Cowan’s parade of horribles would not be realized, because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work and then return to their home countries, rather than start families in the U.S. Conness thus concluded that, if Cowan “knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, … he would not be alarmed.”[23]

No Senator took issue with the consensus interpretation adopted by Howard, Cowan, and Conness. To be sure, one interpretive dispute did arise. Senators disagreed over whether the Howard amendment would extend birthright citizenship to the children of Indians. For although Indian tribes resided within U.S. territory, weren’t they also sovereign entities not subject to the jurisdiction of Congress?

Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point.
Some Senators clearly thought so. Howard urged that Indian tribes “always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations” and thus could not be deemed subject to U.S. law. Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL) agreed, noting that “it would be a violation of our treaty obligations … to extend our laws over these Indian tribes with whom we have made treaties saying we would not do it.” Trumbull insisted that Indian tribes “are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States,” for “t is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.”[24]

Senators Reverdy Johnson (D-MD) and Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) disagreed, contending that the U.S. could extend its laws to Indian tribes and had done so on occasion.[25] Senator James R. Doolittle (R-WI) proposed to put all doubt to rest by adding the words “excluding Indians not taxed” (borrowing from language in Article I) to the Howard amendment.[26] But although there was virtual consensus that birthright citizenship should not be extended to the children of Indian tribal members,[27] a majority of Senators saw no need for clarification. The Senate ultimately defeated Doolittle’s amendment by a 10–30 vote, and then adopted the Howard text without recorded vote.[28]

Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point. The status of Indian tribes under U.S. law may have been ambiguous to members of the 39th Congress. But there is no doubt that foreign countries enjoy no such sovereign status within U.S. borders. And there is likewise no doubt that U.S. law applies to their nationals who enter U.S. territory.

Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment

Sorry but you are clueless.

 

[paddymurphy]

Trump did NOT say the 14th Amendment is Un-Constitutional! He pointed out that the 14th Amendment does NOT say an illegal can walk across the border, have a baby, and that baby be automaticlaly considered a US citizen.

Trump accurately pointed out that while people / parties with agendas, those who have not read the ENTIRE 14th Amendment, and those who just ignorantly cling to what they are told have declared the 14th Amendment to say these babies are US Citizens, Constitutional and Legal Scholars and Judges, have affirmed this is NOT the case. If EMOTION superceded LAW then Liberals would be right on this, but it is NOT and they are NOT!

We went through this yesterday. The whole Constitutional and Legal Scholars you are claiming support your contention and Trump's suggestion claim. So, show us who they are. Name some of those constitutional experts.

Have you read what the author of the 14th Amendment wrote about it, about what his intent was? Or are you just another emotion-fueled liberal socialist progressive who seeks to assign YOUR definition onto things?

If you went over this yesterday then you had the opportunity to do some research and find the answer to your question yourself. Since you are asking me to do your homewwork for you that tells me you have not. In that case, why bother - you have made up your mind, will only argue against anything I post.

You mean this?
Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment

Id

that is the most ridiculous post yet on this thread. you get the idiot award for the day.

Why?

Uhhh, duh, because he is an idiot?

That is not what I meant. What law determines that the child of a female prisoner of war born in the US or and/or under US jurisdiction would not be protected under the 14th Amendment?

The 14th was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves. That is all it was written for. The interpretation being given today is WRONG

that If were true, why would they have debated and discussed Chinese and other foreigners? Like they did here:
Senator Howard’s brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:

“Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”[21]

This understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment – indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.

Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) – who would later vote against the entire constitutional amendment anyway – was the first to speak in opposition to extending birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amendment would effectively deprive states of the authority to expel persons of different races – in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California – by granting their children citizenship and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected especially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.[22]

In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:

“The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”

Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire predictions of foreign overpopulation, but explained that, although legally correct, Cowan’s parade of horribles would not be realized, because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work and then return to their home countries, rather than start families in the U.S. Conness thus concluded that, if Cowan “knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, … he would not be alarmed.”[23]

No Senator took issue with the consensus interpretation adopted by Howard, Cowan, and Conness. To be sure, one interpretive dispute did arise. Senators disagreed over whether the Howard amendment would extend birthright citizenship to the children of Indians. For although Indian tribes resided within U.S. territory, weren’t they also sovereign entities not subject to the jurisdiction of Congress?

Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point.
Some Senators clearly thought so. Howard urged that Indian tribes “always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations” and thus could not be deemed subject to U.S. law. Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL) agreed, noting that “it would be a violation of our treaty obligations … to extend our laws over these Indian tribes with whom we have made treaties saying we would not do it.” Trumbull insisted that Indian tribes “are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States,” for “t is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.”[24]

Senators Reverdy Johnson (D-MD) and Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) disagreed, contending that the U.S. could extend its laws to Indian tribes and had done so on occasion.[25] Senator James R. Doolittle (R-WI) proposed to put all doubt to rest by adding the words “excluding Indians not taxed” (borrowing from language in Article I) to the Howard amendment.[26] But although there was virtual consensus that birthright citizenship should not be extended to the children of Indian tribal members,[27] a majority of Senators saw no need for clarification. The Senate ultimately defeated Doolittle’s amendment by a 10–30 vote, and then adopted the Howard text without recorded vote.[28]

Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point. The status of Indian tribes under U.S. law may have been ambiguous to members of the 39th Congress. But there is no doubt that foreign countries enjoy no such sovereign status within U.S. borders. And there is likewise no doubt that U.S. law applies to their nationals who enter U.S. territory.

Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment

Sorry but you are clueless.

 

[paddymurphy]

ANY citizen from ANY country that comes here and does NOT renounce their citizenship from their country of origin may NOT become a U.S. citizen.

I came here and did not renounce my Canadian citizenship and became an American.

Fail. Again.

Then you're not truly an American.

I've got many friends and co-workers with dual Canadian/US citizenship. And they're all truly Americans.

You can't be loyal to two masters.

So, you consider the government your master? I guess you are not an American, then.

 

[Redfish]

Id

that is the most ridiculous post yet on this thread. you get the idiot award for the day.

Why?

Uhhh, duh, because he is an idiot?

That is not what I meant. What law determines that the child of a female prisoner of war born in the US or and/or under US jurisdiction would not be protected under the 14th Amendment?

The 14th was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves. That is all it was written for. The interpretation being given today is WRONG

that If were true, why would they have debated and discussed Chinese and other foreigners? Like they did here:
Senator Howard’s brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:

“Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”[21]

This understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment – indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.

Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) – who would later vote against the entire constitutional amendment anyway – was the first to speak in opposition to extending birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amendment would effectively deprive states of the authority to expel persons of different races – in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California – by granting their children citizenship and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected especially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.[22]

In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:

“The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”

Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire predictions of foreign overpopulation, but explained that, although legally correct, Cowan’s parade of horribles would not be realized, because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work and then return to their home countries, rather than start families in the U.S. Conness thus concluded that, if Cowan “knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, … he would not be alarmed.”[23]

No Senator took issue with the consensus interpretation adopted by Howard, Cowan, and Conness. To be sure, one interpretive dispute did arise. Senators disagreed over whether the Howard amendment would extend birthright citizenship to the children of Indians. For although Indian tribes resided within U.S. territory, weren’t they also sovereign entities not subject to the jurisdiction of Congress?

Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point.
Some Senators clearly thought so. Howard urged that Indian tribes “always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations” and thus could not be deemed subject to U.S. law. Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL) agreed, noting that “it would be a violation of our treaty obligations … to extend our laws over these Indian tribes with whom we have made treaties saying we would not do it.” Trumbull insisted that Indian tribes “are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States,” for “t is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.”[24]

Senators Reverdy Johnson (D-MD) and Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) disagreed, contending that the U.S. could extend its laws to Indian tribes and had done so on occasion.[25] Senator James R. Doolittle (R-WI) proposed to put all doubt to rest by adding the words “excluding Indians not taxed” (borrowing from language in Article I) to the Howard amendment.[26] But although there was virtual consensus that birthright citizenship should not be extended to the children of Indian tribal members,[27] a majority of Senators saw no need for clarification. The Senate ultimately defeated Doolittle’s amendment by a 10–30 vote, and then adopted the Howard text without recorded vote.[28]

Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point. The status of Indian tribes under U.S. law may have been ambiguous to members of the 39th Congress. But there is no doubt that foreign countries enjoy no such sovereign status within U.S. borders. And there is likewise no doubt that U.S. law applies to their nationals who enter U.S. territory.

Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment

Sorry but you are clueless.

Hmmm, I seem to have missed the words "anchor babies". Can you point them out for us?

Nowhere in that discussion is the current issue discussed, i.e. a pregnant woman entering the country days before giving birth solely in order to make her child an american citizen and thereby allowing her and her husband to stay in this country.

That is what is going on today and its a violation of the 14th amendment and the intent of the the writers of that amendment.

 

[Camp]

Trump did NOT say the 14th Amendment is Un-Constitutional! He pointed out that the 14th Amendment does NOT say an illegal can walk across the border, have a baby, and that baby be automaticlaly considered a US citizen.

Trump accurately pointed out that while people / parties with agendas, those who have not read the ENTIRE 14th Amendment, and those who just ignorantly cling to what they are told have declared the 14th Amendment to say these babies are US Citizens, Constitutional and Legal Scholars and Judges, have affirmed this is NOT the case. If EMOTION superceded LAW then Liberals would be right on this, but it is NOT and they are NOT!

We went through this yesterday. The whole Constitutional and Legal Scholars you are claiming support your contention and Trump's suggestion claim. So, show us who they are. Name some of those constitutional experts.

Have you read what the author of the 14th Amendment wrote about it, about what his intent was? Or are you just another emotion-fueled liberal socialist progressive who seeks to assign YOUR definition onto things?

If you went over this yesterday then you had the opportunity to do some research and find the answer to your question yourself. Since you are asking me to do your homewwork for you that tells me you have not. In that case, why bother - you have made up your mind, will only argue against anything I post.

If you would have just read the previous page of post, maybe two, you would have seen what I meant about the topic being covered the day before. You are way behind on this topic, as your question about the so called author of the amendment proves.
I selected a review of the debate on the 14th Amendment by a hard core conservative Republican constitutional expert and posted it. His review is being widely read and referred to because of his credentials and status as an expert in constitutional law. Another posted has posted his resume and large blocks of his review in this thread, like I said, only one page previous to when you started posting this morning. I did my homework, it is your turn to do yours. You made a claim about experts supporting your position. Provide the links or just accept the one I provided.

 

[paddymurphy]

Id

Why?

Uhhh, duh, because he is an idiot?

That is not what I meant. What law determines that the child of a female prisoner of war born in the US or and/or under US jurisdiction would not be protected under the 14th Amendment?

The 14th was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves. That is all it was written for. The interpretation being given today is WRONG

that If were true, why would they have debated and discussed Chinese and other foreigners? Like they did here:
Senator Howard’s brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:

“Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”[21]

This understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment – indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.

Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) – who would later vote against the entire constitutional amendment anyway – was the first to speak in opposition to extending birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amendment would effectively deprive states of the authority to expel persons of different races – in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California – by granting their children citizenship and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected especially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.[22]

In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:

“The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”

Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire predictions of foreign overpopulation, but explained that, although legally correct, Cowan’s parade of horribles would not be realized, because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work and then return to their home countries, rather than start families in the U.S. Conness thus concluded that, if Cowan “knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, … he would not be alarmed.”[23]

No Senator took issue with the consensus interpretation adopted by Howard, Cowan, and Conness. To be sure, one interpretive dispute did arise. Senators disagreed over whether the Howard amendment would extend birthright citizenship to the children of Indians. For although Indian tribes resided within U.S. territory, weren’t they also sovereign entities not subject to the jurisdiction of Congress?

Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point.
Some Senators clearly thought so. Howard urged that Indian tribes “always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations” and thus could not be deemed subject to U.S. law. Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL) agreed, noting that “it would be a violation of our treaty obligations … to extend our laws over these Indian tribes with whom we have made treaties saying we would not do it.” Trumbull insisted that Indian tribes “are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States,” for “t is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.”[24]

Senators Reverdy Johnson (D-MD) and Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) disagreed, contending that the U.S. could extend its laws to Indian tribes and had done so on occasion.[25] Senator James R. Doolittle (R-WI) proposed to put all doubt to rest by adding the words “excluding Indians not taxed” (borrowing from language in Article I) to the Howard amendment.[26] But although there was virtual consensus that birthright citizenship should not be extended to the children of Indian tribal members,[27] a majority of Senators saw no need for clarification. The Senate ultimately defeated Doolittle’s amendment by a 10–30 vote, and then adopted the Howard text without recorded vote.[28]

Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point. The status of Indian tribes under U.S. law may have been ambiguous to members of the 39th Congress. But there is no doubt that foreign countries enjoy no such sovereign status within U.S. borders. And there is likewise no doubt that U.S. law applies to their nationals who enter U.S. territory.

Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment

Sorry but you are clueless.

Hmmm, I seem to have missed the words "anchor babies". Can you point them out for us?

Nowhere in that discussion is the current issue discussed, i.e. a pregnant woman entering the country days before giving birth solely in order to make her child an american citizen and thereby allowing her and her husband to stay in this country.

That is what is going on today and its a violation of the 14th amendment and the intent of the the writers of that amendment.

You wrote, "The 14th was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves. That is all it was written for". The above proves that comment to be bullshit. It was about citizenship. It provided that if you were born here and not exempt from the jurisdiction of the US because you were a diplomat or an invading soldier, you became a citizen upon birth. Those who wrote and passed the law discussed far more that freed black; they discussed its effect on foreigners born here. And simply because a couple here illegally give birth to a child who is a citizen, does not give them the right to stay. They still have to petition for the right to stay and that can be denied.

 

[paddymurphy]

Trump did NOT say the 14th Amendment is Un-Constitutional! He pointed out that the 14th Amendment does NOT say an illegal can walk across the border, have a baby, and that baby be automaticlaly considered a US citizen.

Trump accurately pointed out that while people / parties with agendas, those who have not read the ENTIRE 14th Amendment, and those who just ignorantly cling to what they are told have declared the 14th Amendment to say these babies are US Citizens, Constitutional and Legal Scholars and Judges, have affirmed this is NOT the case. If EMOTION superceded LAW then Liberals would be right on this, but it is NOT and they are NOT!

"Constitutional and Legal Scholars and Judges, have affirmed this is NOT the case." Name one single judge who has affirmed that birthright citizenship is not the case. You cannot name a single, federal Judge who has made that finding. Every single time a federal judge at any level addressed this the referred to the settled law of Wong Kim Ark that born here means you are a citizen. The only "legal scholars" you can find are clowns like Coulter or Levin and, just maybe, a couple of law professors at shitty conservative law schools.

 

[Redfish]

Id

Uhhh, duh, because he is an idiot?

That is not what I meant. What law determines that the child of a female prisoner of war born in the US or and/or under US jurisdiction would not be protected under the 14th Amendment?

The 14th was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves. That is all it was written for. The interpretation being given today is WRONG

that If were true, why would they have debated and discussed Chinese and other foreigners? Like they did here:
Senator Howard’s brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:

“Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”[21]

This understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment – indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.

Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) – who would later vote against the entire constitutional amendment anyway – was the first to speak in opposition to extending birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amendment would effectively deprive states of the authority to expel persons of different races – in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California – by granting their children citizenship and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected especially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.[22]

In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:

“The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”

Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire predictions of foreign overpopulation, but explained that, although legally correct, Cowan’s parade of horribles would not be realized, because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work and then return to their home countries, rather than start families in the U.S. Conness thus concluded that, if Cowan “knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, … he would not be alarmed.”[23]

No Senator took issue with the consensus interpretation adopted by Howard, Cowan, and Conness. To be sure, one interpretive dispute did arise. Senators disagreed over whether the Howard amendment would extend birthright citizenship to the children of Indians. For although Indian tribes resided within U.S. territory, weren’t they also sovereign entities not subject to the jurisdiction of Congress?

Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point.
Some Senators clearly thought so. Howard urged that Indian tribes “always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations” and thus could not be deemed subject to U.S. law. Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL) agreed, noting that “it would be a violation of our treaty obligations … to extend our laws over these Indian tribes with whom we have made treaties saying we would not do it.” Trumbull insisted that Indian tribes “are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States,” for “t is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.”[24]

Senators Reverdy Johnson (D-MD) and Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) disagreed, contending that the U.S. could extend its laws to Indian tribes and had done so on occasion.[25] Senator James R. Doolittle (R-WI) proposed to put all doubt to rest by adding the words “excluding Indians not taxed” (borrowing from language in Article I) to the Howard amendment.[26] But although there was virtual consensus that birthright citizenship should not be extended to the children of Indian tribal members,[27] a majority of Senators saw no need for clarification. The Senate ultimately defeated Doolittle’s amendment by a 10–30 vote, and then adopted the Howard text without recorded vote.[28]

Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point. The status of Indian tribes under U.S. law may have been ambiguous to members of the 39th Congress. But there is no doubt that foreign countries enjoy no such sovereign status within U.S. borders. And there is likewise no doubt that U.S. law applies to their nationals who enter U.S. territory.

Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment

Sorry but you are clueless.

Hmmm, I seem to have missed the words "anchor babies". Can you point them out for us?

Nowhere in that discussion is the current issue discussed, i.e. a pregnant woman entering the country days before giving birth solely in order to make her child an american citizen and thereby allowing her and her husband to stay in this country.

That is what is going on today and its a violation of the 14th amendment and the intent of the the writers of that amendment.

You wrote, "The 14th was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves. That is all it was written for". The above proves that comment to be bullshit. It was about citizenship. It provided that if you were born here and not exempt from the jurisdiction of the US because you were a diplomat or an invading soldier, you became a citizen upon birth. Those who wrote and passed the law discussed far more that freed black; they discussed its effect on foreigners born here. And simply because a couple here illegally give birth to a child who is a citizen, does not give them the right to stay. They still have to petition for the right to stay and that can be denied.

you live in a fantasy world. Were it not for the emancipation proclamation the 14th amendment would never have been written.

Can you sing a few bars of Danny Boy for us?