Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Redfish]

Id
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.

And why not?

You know the EP was a war tactic, right?

Id

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?

My fantasy world apparently includes proof that your claim that the 14th amendment was only meant to be about freed slaves is a lie. If those who debated it discussed what it would mean with regard to people OTHER than freed slaves, doesn't that prove your claim to be false?

Not at all. It was primarily about freed slaves but also addressed others who were in the country "illegally" at the time. The anchor baby concept is something completely new.

 

[Syriusly]

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 wonder which liberals you think want to get rid of the Bill of Rights?

And frankly- Trump doesn't want to get rid of the 14th Amendment either.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

And why not?

You know the EP was a war tactic, right?

Id
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?

My fantasy world apparently includes proof that your claim that the 14th amendment was only meant to be about freed slaves is a lie. If those who debated it discussed what it would mean with regard to people OTHER than freed slaves, doesn't that prove your claim to be false?

Not at all. It was primarily about freed slaves but also addressed others who were in the country "illegally" at the time. The anchor baby concept is something completely new.

It was known, and the SC, at least in 1898 with US v Wong did not care. It's mentioned in the ruling.

 

[Syriusly]

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

No- thats not all it was written for.

My god- have you ever even read the Constitution?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The Bill of Rights was written by Americans who were frankly radicals and liberals.

And you despise America- and Americans.

 

[Syriusly]

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. !

You are correct that Trump didn't say that the 14th Amendment was wrong- but you are wrong in everything else.

The 14th Amendment language on citizenship can't get much clearer than what it says- and the Supreme Court has recognized that children born of illegal aliens in the United States are by birth- American citizens.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Here is the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

Where does it say 'except Anchor babies"?

 

[Syriusly]

Id

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?

LOL- trying to use logic with Redfish is like trying to teach a pig to dance.

The 14th Amendment was initiated partially in order to ensure freed slaves-and their descendants were recognized as citizens- but as was pointed out to you- your statement that that was the only thing that the 14th Amendment was about is just pure ignorance- or more likely just a flat out lie, considering we are dealing with you.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yes, there are lots of liberal judges. Do you have a point other than that?

He was pointing out that post he was responding to was false

Legal Scholars and Judges, have affirmed this is NOT the case.

And of course he is correct- the entire Supreme Court has recognized that children born of illegal aliens are born U.S. citizens.

Now- do you have any point- other than to expose once again that you are just trolling?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And why not?

You know the EP was a war tactic, right?

Id
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?

My fantasy world apparently includes proof that your claim that the 14th amendment was only meant to be about freed slaves is a lie. If those who debated it discussed what it would mean with regard to people OTHER than freed slaves, doesn't that prove your claim to be false?

Not at all. It was primarily about freed slaves but also addressed others who were in the country "illegally" at the time. The anchor baby concept is something completely new.

So when you said this:

The 14th was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves. That is all it was written for.

Were you:

1. Lying or
2. Ignorant or
3. Both?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yes, there are lots of liberal judges. Do you have a point other than that?

The point is you keep lying, I keep pointing out you lie and you change the subject. Go ahead. Post another lie. I will point out it is a lie. By the way, in Plyler and Rios -Pineda, all nine Supreme Court justices agreed that the 14th confers birthright citizenship on the children of parents here illegally. That would include Burger, Rehnquist and the other conservatives.

That is what Redfish does.

He could be on Dancing with the Stars with how he dances around the truth.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yes, there are lots of liberal judges. Do you have a point other than that?

The point is you keep lying, I keep pointing out you lie and you change the subject. Go ahead. Post another lie. I will point out it is a lie. By the way, in Plyler and Rios -Pineda, all nine Supreme Court justices agreed that the 14th confers birthright citizenship on the children of parents here illegally. That would include Burger, Rehnquist and the other conservatives.

So what? That does not make them right. A new SCOTUS case could reverse those rulings. The 14th is being misinterpreted, that may change, or illegal immigration will destroy this country. Those are the only two options.

Well you can have the opinion that the Supreme Court is wrong- but it is merely your opinion. Sure, the Supreme Court could declare that the 14th Amendment doesn't mean what it says - just as a new Supreme Court could declare that the First Amendment really doesn't apply to Free Speech- but I think you are bound to be disappointed.

The 14th Amendment has very little to do with the illegal immigration problem we have- and we can frankly solve the majority of the immigration issues without even discussing the 14th Amendment.

Trump and other politicians(Right and Left) just use the 14th Amendment to stir up easily agitated idiots about immigration. What is Congress doing about immigration again?

Nothing. Or as our illegal workers would say "Nada".

You want to solve the issue of illegal immigration- ask your Congressman why he isn't doing anything.

 

[Syriusly]

"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.

Yes, there are lots of liberal judges. Do you have a point other than that?

The point is you keep lying, I keep pointing out you lie and you change the subject. Go ahead. Post another lie. I will point out it is a lie. By the way, in Plyler and Rios -Pineda, all nine Supreme Court justices agreed that the 14th confers birthright citizenship on the children of parents here illegally. That would include Burger, Rehnquist and the other conservatives.

So what? That does not make them right. A new SCOTUS case could reverse those rulings. The 14th is being misinterpreted, that may change, or illegal immigration will destroy this country. Those are the only two options.

No, the 14th is being interpreted based on its clear and precise language and based on what those who considered it and passed it intended. And immigration is not harming this nation in any way at all.

wrong, legal immigration is good for the nation. Illegal immigration is bad for it. Its that simple.

Not one of the writers of the 14th addressed the concept of anchor babies in any way in any of the debate on the amendment. To claim that they did is simply ignorant.

The 14th Amendment does not say 'except for anchor babies'

To claim it does is simply a lie.

 

[paperview]

The 14th Amendment was initiated partially in order to ensure freed slaves-and their descendants were recognized as citizens-

Yes, and not just freed slaves, but recall, SCOTUS had ruled a decade earlier even free blacks were not citizens.

but as was pointed out to you- your statement that that was the only thing that the 14th Amendment was about is just pure ignorance- or more likely just a flat out lie, considering we are dealing with you.

You are right. He is of course, and as usual, wrong.

 

[Camp]

If Trump were right about his view of immigration laws we would have heard from the many constitutional experts and scholars he lied about that supported his ideas. Instead we hear silence. We hear from political commentators and radio talk show people, but no experts and scholars. Trump lies everyday to get himself out of embarrassing situations. His supporters, even here at USMB echo the lies. The media is giving him a free ride. Trying to get an answer out of him will bring about bullying attacks up to and including name calling and physical confrontation with his security and body guards. Trump is a cult leader, plain and simple. His followers have become brainwashed cultist.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

And why not?

You know the EP was a war tactic, right?

Id
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?

My fantasy world apparently includes proof that your claim that the 14th amendment was only meant to be about freed slaves is a lie. If those who debated it discussed what it would mean with regard to people OTHER than freed slaves, doesn't that prove your claim to be false?

Not at all. It was primarily about freed slaves but also addressed others who were in the country "illegally" at the time. The anchor baby concept is something completely new.

Oh, so now it was about "primarily" about freed slaves? Does that mean I educated you such that you disavow your original claim that it was only about freed slaves?

 

[Boss]

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.

Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?

 

[paperview]

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.

Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?

I guess all those Supreme Court justices are just too stupid to know any better, eh?

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?

I guess all those Supreme Court justices are just too stupid to know any better, eh?

I am reading a man saying that those foreigners or aliens who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are not subject our laws and not entitled to citizenship. Had he meant to say what you claim, he would have said that it would not include "foreigners, aliens AND those who belong to ..." And, if you read the rest of the comments from the debate, you will understand that they clearly only intended to exempt for birthright citizenship those not subject to our jurisdiction because they were diplomats. Wong Kim Ark (you ought to try reading this case, by the way) contains a lengthy analysis of the history of the law governing citizenship that clearly and unequivocally provide that citizenship follows place of birth.

 

[Boss]

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.

Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?

I guess all those Supreme Court justices are just too stupid to know any better, eh?

Supreme court justices have NEVER ruled on a case regarding illegal alien anchor babies.

AGAIN... in case you're slow... the man who WROTE the 14th says it doesn't apply to foreigners or aliens. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 doesn't give SCOTUS authority to decide naturalization issues anyway.