Why Do Liberals Get Angry When...

[Boss]

I'm sorry but I am offended that you continue to refer to immigration laws and immigration policy as if anyone on the right has questioned anything related to legal immigration.

For far too long, this has been the problem with the left. They want to lie and pretend the right is opposed to immigrants... bunch of racists who hate brown people. And you have some republicrats steppin' and fetchin' trying to show they don't hate brown people... But this isn't about racism or xenophobia or whatever sickening meme you wish to hurl at the right. This is about a problem we have of illegal aliens crossing our southern border and the problem is going to be resolved.

It amazes me that the same mindless liberal idiots who cheer the shitting on cop cars occutard movement and whine and moan about wealth disparity, living wages and the poor getting poorer while the rich get richer... are supporting this insanity of open borders.

I'm not a liberal nor "on the left" so stuff it son. I've said many times that I've a problem with illegal aliens, I've also said it should be up to the state to decide if they take in aliens at all. So get off your horse of assuming what I'm saying.

/I/ am about the truth, and the truth is that the constitution applies /all/ people in the country; citizen's, non-citizens, legal, or not. That doesn't mean that anyone can come into the country and take whatever they want with no consequences, it doesn't mean open borders, it doesn't mean that illegals are /not/ a problem for the country. It simply means what is written and the interpretation of historians based on the words of the founding fathers themselves.

Please do refrain from trying to put political party lines and beliefs in my mouth simply because I agree the government did interpret it correctly, even if I don't like it nor agree with it being "best for the country," it's still what it says...

And as a note, my political alignment(s) are clearly noted in my sig for everyone to see - you are completely barking up the wrong tree.


Now, if you have a different interpretation of what the written constitution /means/ than all the historian's, SOCTUS's, and a shit ton of other higher up's interpretation's, that's fine, do talk about that, and tell your reps, because pretty much the entire government quite simply disagrees with your viewpoint (for various reasons honestly.)



If that's a good policy/mindset to maintain in current times because of the advance of transportation technology, or not, is certainly a question I agree - things have changed a /lot/ and in ways that the founding fathers could never have foreseen. However, I am /not/ going to reinterpret the constitution just to forward my /personal/ opinion that illegals are a problem for this country right now. We don't need to reinterpret the constitution in order to modify the laws surrounding immigration, we don't need to do it to alter the policies.

Frankly, if we had left the power with the god damn states as was intended by the constitution then this wouldn't be an issue today, but no, people with political agendas go in and modify and reinterpret in order to forward their bullshit and we get this shit. Which is, imo, exactly what /you/ are doing and why I'm taking issue with your statements even though I actually agree with your viewpoint on the southern borders and stuff - limiting illegals, doing something to circumvent birth citizenship somehow so it's not abused, etc.

I didn't assume anything about your politics. I said I was offended that you keep talking about immigration policy when the discussion is about illegal border crossing. Then I started a new paragraph and talked about how this was the problem with the left. I didn't say you were part of the left. Just because you are flooding the board with left-wing lies and propaganda from openborders.org doesn't mean you're a liberal.

When the fucking Constitution says Congress has power to set naturalization laws, I don't need to "interpret" that... it's clear and unambiguous to me.

The 'fucking' constitution also says this:

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

That's pretty cut and dry as well. And by many accounts would override any law by congress regarding naturalization that restricted birthright citizenship. That definitely requires some interpretation because there are passages of the constituition that are potentially in conflict.

That you ignore the 14th amendment doesn't mean its any less authoritative. And if the 14th amendment grants citizenship to any person born here, then a law by congress saying otherwise would violate the constitution. Something congress doesn't have the authority to do.

This has been covered in this thread.

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

If all you need is to be born on US soil to become a citizen, the red part wouldn't be there. It is totally unnecessary, IF that was what the 14th intended to convey. It is not a meaningless term and it isn't a term that has no purpose. Some airheads will argue that it just means "here in the US" but why be redundant with a Constitutional amendment? It just stated "in the United States" ...so why state the same thing again in another way?

 

[Ravi]

I'm sorry but I am offended that you continue to refer to immigration laws and immigration policy as if anyone on the right has questioned anything related to legal immigration.

For far too long, this has been the problem with the left. They want to lie and pretend the right is opposed to immigrants... bunch of racists who hate brown people. And you have some republicrats steppin' and fetchin' trying to show they don't hate brown people... But this isn't about racism or xenophobia or whatever sickening meme you wish to hurl at the right. This is about a problem we have of illegal aliens crossing our southern border and the problem is going to be resolved.

It amazes me that the same mindless liberal idiots who cheer the shitting on cop cars occutard movement and whine and moan about wealth disparity, living wages and the poor getting poorer while the rich get richer... are supporting this insanity of open borders.

I'm not a liberal nor "on the left" so stuff it son. I've said many times that I've a problem with illegal aliens, I've also said it should be up to the state to decide if they take in aliens at all. So get off your horse of assuming what I'm saying.

/I/ am about the truth, and the truth is that the constitution applies /all/ people in the country; citizen's, non-citizens, legal, or not. That doesn't mean that anyone can come into the country and take whatever they want with no consequences, it doesn't mean open borders, it doesn't mean that illegals are /not/ a problem for the country. It simply means what is written and the interpretation of historians based on the words of the founding fathers themselves.

Please do refrain from trying to put political party lines and beliefs in my mouth simply because I agree the government did interpret it correctly, even if I don't like it nor agree with it being "best for the country," it's still what it says...

And as a note, my political alignment(s) are clearly noted in my sig for everyone to see - you are completely barking up the wrong tree.


Now, if you have a different interpretation of what the written constitution /means/ than all the historian's, SOCTUS's, and a shit ton of other higher up's interpretation's, that's fine, do talk about that, and tell your reps, because pretty much the entire government quite simply disagrees with your viewpoint (for various reasons honestly.)



If that's a good policy/mindset to maintain in current times because of the advance of transportation technology, or not, is certainly a question I agree - things have changed a /lot/ and in ways that the founding fathers could never have foreseen. However, I am /not/ going to reinterpret the constitution just to forward my /personal/ opinion that illegals are a problem for this country right now. We don't need to reinterpret the constitution in order to modify the laws surrounding immigration, we don't need to do it to alter the policies.

Frankly, if we had left the power with the god damn states as was intended by the constitution then this wouldn't be an issue today, but no, people with political agendas go in and modify and reinterpret in order to forward their bullshit and we get this shit. Which is, imo, exactly what /you/ are doing and why I'm taking issue with your statements even though I actually agree with your viewpoint on the southern borders and stuff - limiting illegals, doing something to circumvent birth citizenship somehow so it's not abused, etc.

I didn't assume anything about your politics. I said I was offended that you keep talking about immigration policy when the discussion is about illegal border crossing. Then I started a new paragraph and talked about how this was the problem with the left. I didn't say you were part of the left. Just because you are flooding the board with left-wing lies and propaganda from openborders.org doesn't mean you're a liberal.

When the fucking Constitution says Congress has power to set naturalization laws, I don't need to "interpret" that... it's clear and unambiguous to me.

The 'fucking' constitution also says this:

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

That's pretty cut and dry as well. And by many accounts would override any law by congress regarding naturalization that restricted birthright citizenship. That definitely requires some interpretation because there are passages of the constituition that are potentially in conflict.

That you ignore the 14th amendment doesn't mean its any less authoritative. And if the 14th amendment grants citizenship to any person born here, then a law by congress saying otherwise would violate the constitution. Something congress doesn't have the authority to do.

This has been covered in this thread.

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

If all you need is to be born on US soil to become a citizen, the red part wouldn't be there. It is totally unnecessary, IF that was what the 14th intended to convey. It is not a meaningless term and it isn't a term that has no purpose. Some airheads will argue that it just means "here in the US" but why be redundant with a Constitutional amendment? It just stated "in the United States" ...so why state the same thing again in another way?

Again, not everyone in the u.s. Is under our jurisdiction. That phrase is in there to exclude diplomats. Why do you keep ignoring that point?

 

[Skylar]

I'm sorry but I am offended that you continue to refer to immigration laws and immigration policy as if anyone on the right has questioned anything related to legal immigration.

For far too long, this has been the problem with the left. They want to lie and pretend the right is opposed to immigrants... bunch of racists who hate brown people. And you have some republicrats steppin' and fetchin' trying to show they don't hate brown people... But this isn't about racism or xenophobia or whatever sickening meme you wish to hurl at the right. This is about a problem we have of illegal aliens crossing our southern border and the problem is going to be resolved.

It amazes me that the same mindless liberal idiots who cheer the shitting on cop cars occutard movement and whine and moan about wealth disparity, living wages and the poor getting poorer while the rich get richer... are supporting this insanity of open borders.

I'm not a liberal nor "on the left" so stuff it son. I've said many times that I've a problem with illegal aliens, I've also said it should be up to the state to decide if they take in aliens at all. So get off your horse of assuming what I'm saying.

/I/ am about the truth, and the truth is that the constitution applies /all/ people in the country; citizen's, non-citizens, legal, or not. That doesn't mean that anyone can come into the country and take whatever they want with no consequences, it doesn't mean open borders, it doesn't mean that illegals are /not/ a problem for the country. It simply means what is written and the interpretation of historians based on the words of the founding fathers themselves.

Please do refrain from trying to put political party lines and beliefs in my mouth simply because I agree the government did interpret it correctly, even if I don't like it nor agree with it being "best for the country," it's still what it says...

And as a note, my political alignment(s) are clearly noted in my sig for everyone to see - you are completely barking up the wrong tree.


Now, if you have a different interpretation of what the written constitution /means/ than all the historian's, SOCTUS's, and a shit ton of other higher up's interpretation's, that's fine, do talk about that, and tell your reps, because pretty much the entire government quite simply disagrees with your viewpoint (for various reasons honestly.)



If that's a good policy/mindset to maintain in current times because of the advance of transportation technology, or not, is certainly a question I agree - things have changed a /lot/ and in ways that the founding fathers could never have foreseen. However, I am /not/ going to reinterpret the constitution just to forward my /personal/ opinion that illegals are a problem for this country right now. We don't need to reinterpret the constitution in order to modify the laws surrounding immigration, we don't need to do it to alter the policies.

Frankly, if we had left the power with the god damn states as was intended by the constitution then this wouldn't be an issue today, but no, people with political agendas go in and modify and reinterpret in order to forward their bullshit and we get this shit. Which is, imo, exactly what /you/ are doing and why I'm taking issue with your statements even though I actually agree with your viewpoint on the southern borders and stuff - limiting illegals, doing something to circumvent birth citizenship somehow so it's not abused, etc.

I didn't assume anything about your politics. I said I was offended that you keep talking about immigration policy when the discussion is about illegal border crossing. Then I started a new paragraph and talked about how this was the problem with the left. I didn't say you were part of the left. Just because you are flooding the board with left-wing lies and propaganda from openborders.org doesn't mean you're a liberal.

When the fucking Constitution says Congress has power to set naturalization laws, I don't need to "interpret" that... it's clear and unambiguous to me.

The 'fucking' constitution also says this:

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

That's pretty cut and dry as well. And by many accounts would override any law by congress regarding naturalization that restricted birthright citizenship. That definitely requires some interpretation because there are passages of the constituition that are potentially in conflict.

That you ignore the 14th amendment doesn't mean its any less authoritative. And if the 14th amendment grants citizenship to any person born here, then a law by congress saying otherwise would violate the constitution. Something congress doesn't have the authority to do.

This has been covered in this thread.

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

If all you need is to be born on US soil to become a citizen, the red part wouldn't be there. It is totally unnecessary, IF that was what the 14th intended to convey. It is not a meaningless term and it isn't a term that has no purpose. Some airheads will argue that it just means "here in the US" but why be redundant with a Constitutional amendment? It just stated "in the United States" ...so why state the same thing again in another way?

What the term means requires elaborate interpretation. With the USSC approaching the topic several times. With its most recent rulings finding that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' meant that US law applied to the individual in question.

The idea that there's no need for interpretation regarding immigration law or birth right citizenship or the constitution on the matter is ludicrously false. Interpretation is explicitly necessary. As the rulings demonstrated.

 

[Boss]

I'm sorry but I am offended that you continue to refer to immigration laws and immigration policy as if anyone on the right has questioned anything related to legal immigration.

For far too long, this has been the problem with the left. They want to lie and pretend the right is opposed to immigrants... bunch of racists who hate brown people. And you have some republicrats steppin' and fetchin' trying to show they don't hate brown people... But this isn't about racism or xenophobia or whatever sickening meme you wish to hurl at the right. This is about a problem we have of illegal aliens crossing our southern border and the problem is going to be resolved.

It amazes me that the same mindless liberal idiots who cheer the shitting on cop cars occutard movement and whine and moan about wealth disparity, living wages and the poor getting poorer while the rich get richer... are supporting this insanity of open borders.

I'm not a liberal nor "on the left" so stuff it son. I've said many times that I've a problem with illegal aliens, I've also said it should be up to the state to decide if they take in aliens at all. So get off your horse of assuming what I'm saying.

/I/ am about the truth, and the truth is that the constitution applies /all/ people in the country; citizen's, non-citizens, legal, or not. That doesn't mean that anyone can come into the country and take whatever they want with no consequences, it doesn't mean open borders, it doesn't mean that illegals are /not/ a problem for the country. It simply means what is written and the interpretation of historians based on the words of the founding fathers themselves.

Please do refrain from trying to put political party lines and beliefs in my mouth simply because I agree the government did interpret it correctly, even if I don't like it nor agree with it being "best for the country," it's still what it says...

And as a note, my political alignment(s) are clearly noted in my sig for everyone to see - you are completely barking up the wrong tree.


Now, if you have a different interpretation of what the written constitution /means/ than all the historian's, SOCTUS's, and a shit ton of other higher up's interpretation's, that's fine, do talk about that, and tell your reps, because pretty much the entire government quite simply disagrees with your viewpoint (for various reasons honestly.)



If that's a good policy/mindset to maintain in current times because of the advance of transportation technology, or not, is certainly a question I agree - things have changed a /lot/ and in ways that the founding fathers could never have foreseen. However, I am /not/ going to reinterpret the constitution just to forward my /personal/ opinion that illegals are a problem for this country right now. We don't need to reinterpret the constitution in order to modify the laws surrounding immigration, we don't need to do it to alter the policies.

Frankly, if we had left the power with the god damn states as was intended by the constitution then this wouldn't be an issue today, but no, people with political agendas go in and modify and reinterpret in order to forward their bullshit and we get this shit. Which is, imo, exactly what /you/ are doing and why I'm taking issue with your statements even though I actually agree with your viewpoint on the southern borders and stuff - limiting illegals, doing something to circumvent birth citizenship somehow so it's not abused, etc.

I didn't assume anything about your politics. I said I was offended that you keep talking about immigration policy when the discussion is about illegal border crossing. Then I started a new paragraph and talked about how this was the problem with the left. I didn't say you were part of the left. Just because you are flooding the board with left-wing lies and propaganda from openborders.org doesn't mean you're a liberal.

When the fucking Constitution says Congress has power to set naturalization laws, I don't need to "interpret" that... it's clear and unambiguous to me.

The 'fucking' constitution also says this:

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

That's pretty cut and dry as well. And by many accounts would override any law by congress regarding naturalization that restricted birthright citizenship. That definitely requires some interpretation because there are passages of the constituition that are potentially in conflict.

That you ignore the 14th amendment doesn't mean its any less authoritative. And if the 14th amendment grants citizenship to any person born here, then a law by congress saying otherwise would violate the constitution. Something congress doesn't have the authority to do.

This has been covered in this thread.

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

If all you need is to be born on US soil to become a citizen, the red part wouldn't be there. It is totally unnecessary, IF that was what the 14th intended to convey. It is not a meaningless term and it isn't a term that has no purpose. Some airheads will argue that it just means "here in the US" but why be redundant with a Constitutional amendment? It just stated "in the United States" ...so why state the same thing again in another way?

Again, not everyone in the u.s. Is under our jurisdiction. That phrase is in there to exclude diplomats. Why do you keep ignoring that point?

It is not there just to exclude diplomats. It is there to exclude anyone who is not under complete jurisdiction of the US and/or state. An illegal alien is not under complete jurisdiction. The word "jurisdiction" has a specific legal meaning, it is not talking about geographical boundaries, it means; political allegiance owed.

Again... Six years prior to the famous Wong case the libtards are parading around in support of their gross misinterpretation of the 14th, the SCOTUS emphatically ruled against birthright citizenship for a Native Freaking American! In the Wong case, they found Wong met the criteria of "jurisdiction" because the immigrants were LEGAL. In the case of the Native American six years before, they didn't meet the "jurisdiction" requirement because they had allegiance to their tribe.

 

[Boss]

With its most recent rulings finding that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' meant that US law applied to the individual in question.

You'll need to cite a source for this. I believe this is false.

 

[Dana7360]

Trump wants to end birth right citizenship?

I understand that to re-write citizenship standards is complicated. But it's impossible to live like this, don't you think so? A child born in the US to citizens of another country would return to the country their parents reside in. That's the only right decision. Always was and always will.

My dad's parents came here during the first part of the 20th century. The were escaping a genocide on them by muslims of the Ottoman Empire.

They came here when there was no immigration laws beyond signing a form at Ellis Island after they've proved they aren't bringing in disease and have a way to support themselves.

Your attitude would have forced my grandparents, my dad and my aunt to return to that genocide and die.

In my dad's father's family 3 brothers were sent to America. They were the only ones I know of that survived the genocide. One of those brothers was my dad's father.

You need to think long and hard about the consequences of what you and trump want to do. Especially since most Americans disagree with that idea.

The only reason why trump and others are saying that the constitution can be changed with out properly doing it the way the constitution requires. They know that there's no way such an idea will get super majority in the House of Reps and Senate. They also know there's no way that a super majority of the states are going to vote to pass it too.

So suck it up and follow the constitution.

The best way to prevent such things is to enforce our hiring laws, destroy any business that hires illegals then prosecute the owners, management and executive for their crimes and put them in prison.

All it will take is one business to experience that and no other business will hire an undocumented worker.

 

[Skylar]

With its most recent rulings finding that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' meant that US law applied to the individual in question.

You'll need to cite a source for this. I believe this is false.

Here's the definition of jurisdiction given by Blacks Law dictionary:

The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or ad- mitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient.

Law Dictionary: What is JURISDICTION? definition of JURISDICTION (Black's Law Dictionary)

So there's your 'specific legal definition'. Which is the application of law. And its generally applied geographically. All illegals are subject to our laws, subject to investigations, the pronouncement of sentences, etc..

And thus would be subject to the jurisdiction of the US per the specific legal definition of jurisdiction.

As for the most recent Supreme Court rulings citing the matter, you'll want to look at Plyler and Doe in 1982. In its footnotes, the following point appears:

"impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

And.....

"[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."

Plyler v. Doe | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

With the overwhelming majority of historical emphasis on jurisdiction being about geographic boundaries.

At the very, very least.....there's plenty of room for interpretation. And plenty of need for it. Simply obliterating your previous assertion that neither are necessary.

 

[Dana7360]

Edit - sorry sent too soon. The 14th amendment says that everyone born in the US is automatically a citizen.

No, that is NOT what it says.

Please point out to me where in the 14th amendment that it doesn't say that all people born in America aren't American citizens.

You need to actually READ the amendment before you post that way you won't look so foolish.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

 

[Dana7360]

Edit - sorry sent too soon. The 14th amendment says that everyone born in the US is automatically a citizen.

No, that is NOT what it says.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside

Actually, this is precisely what it says.

Thanks!

(Illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof").

No one is giving undocumented people citizenship.

The citizenship is being given to the person who was born in America. They are citizens just like everyone else born in America.

Stop lying.

 

[sealybobo]

Hell they can not even comprehend the difference between a legal alien and a illegal one.

If your parents are here illegally, then you weren't born here legally either. You are not an American citizen.

 

[sealybobo]

Edit - sorry sent too soon. The 14th amendment says that everyone born in the US is automatically a citizen.

No, that is NOT what it says.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside

Actually, this is precisely what it says.

Thanks!

(Illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof").

No one is giving undocumented people citizenship.

The citizenship is being given to the person who was born in America. They are citizens just like everyone else born in America.

Stop lying.

They shouldn't be. Their parents shouldn't even be here and neither should they.

That's like me running up to Trump while he's peeing and shove his penis in my butt so I can sue him for rape.

 

[Ravi]

I'm not a liberal nor "on the left" so stuff it son. I've said many times that I've a problem with illegal aliens, I've also said it should be up to the state to decide if they take in aliens at all. So get off your horse of assuming what I'm saying.

/I/ am about the truth, and the truth is that the constitution applies /all/ people in the country; citizen's, non-citizens, legal, or not. That doesn't mean that anyone can come into the country and take whatever they want with no consequences, it doesn't mean open borders, it doesn't mean that illegals are /not/ a problem for the country. It simply means what is written and the interpretation of historians based on the words of the founding fathers themselves.

Please do refrain from trying to put political party lines and beliefs in my mouth simply because I agree the government did interpret it correctly, even if I don't like it nor agree with it being "best for the country," it's still what it says...

And as a note, my political alignment(s) are clearly noted in my sig for everyone to see - you are completely barking up the wrong tree.


Now, if you have a different interpretation of what the written constitution /means/ than all the historian's, SOCTUS's, and a shit ton of other higher up's interpretation's, that's fine, do talk about that, and tell your reps, because pretty much the entire government quite simply disagrees with your viewpoint (for various reasons honestly.)



If that's a good policy/mindset to maintain in current times because of the advance of transportation technology, or not, is certainly a question I agree - things have changed a /lot/ and in ways that the founding fathers could never have foreseen. However, I am /not/ going to reinterpret the constitution just to forward my /personal/ opinion that illegals are a problem for this country right now. We don't need to reinterpret the constitution in order to modify the laws surrounding immigration, we don't need to do it to alter the policies.

Frankly, if we had left the power with the god damn states as was intended by the constitution then this wouldn't be an issue today, but no, people with political agendas go in and modify and reinterpret in order to forward their bullshit and we get this shit. Which is, imo, exactly what /you/ are doing and why I'm taking issue with your statements even though I actually agree with your viewpoint on the southern borders and stuff - limiting illegals, doing something to circumvent birth citizenship somehow so it's not abused, etc.

I didn't assume anything about your politics. I said I was offended that you keep talking about immigration policy when the discussion is about illegal border crossing. Then I started a new paragraph and talked about how this was the problem with the left. I didn't say you were part of the left. Just because you are flooding the board with left-wing lies and propaganda from openborders.org doesn't mean you're a liberal.

When the fucking Constitution says Congress has power to set naturalization laws, I don't need to "interpret" that... it's clear and unambiguous to me.

The 'fucking' constitution also says this:

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

That's pretty cut and dry as well. And by many accounts would override any law by congress regarding naturalization that restricted birthright citizenship. That definitely requires some interpretation because there are passages of the constituition that are potentially in conflict.

That you ignore the 14th amendment doesn't mean its any less authoritative. And if the 14th amendment grants citizenship to any person born here, then a law by congress saying otherwise would violate the constitution. Something congress doesn't have the authority to do.

This has been covered in this thread.

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

If all you need is to be born on US soil to become a citizen, the red part wouldn't be there. It is totally unnecessary, IF that was what the 14th intended to convey. It is not a meaningless term and it isn't a term that has no purpose. Some airheads will argue that it just means "here in the US" but why be redundant with a Constitutional amendment? It just stated "in the United States" ...so why state the same thing again in another way?

Again, not everyone in the u.s. Is under our jurisdiction. That phrase is in there to exclude diplomats. Why do you keep ignoring that point?

It is not there just to exclude diplomats. It is there to exclude anyone who is not under complete jurisdiction of the US and/or state. An illegal alien is not under complete jurisdiction. The word "jurisdiction" has a specific legal meaning, it is not talking about geographical boundaries, it means; political allegiance owed.

Again... Six years prior to the famous Wong case the libtards are parading around in support of their gross misinterpretation of the 14th, the SCOTUS emphatically ruled against birthright citizenship for a Native Freaking American! In the Wong case, they found Wong met the criteria of "jurisdiction" because the immigrants were LEGAL. In the case of the Native American six years before, they didn't meet the "jurisdiction" requirement because they had allegiance to their tribe.

Bull. It has nothing to do with allegiance.

 

[bedowin62]

left-wing nutjobs stay angry. it's a desperate urge

 

[Dana7360]

Edit - sorry sent too soon. The 14th amendment says that everyone born in the US is automatically a citizen.

No, that is NOT what it says.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside

Actually, this is precisely what it says.

Thanks!

(Illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof").

No one is giving undocumented people citizenship.

The citizenship is being given to the person who was born in America. They are citizens just like everyone else born in America.

Stop lying.

They shouldn't be. Their parents shouldn't even be here and neither should they.

That's like me running up to Trump while he's peeing and shove his penis in my butt so I can sue him for rape.

My grandparents came here legally just like millions of other people came here in the beginning of the 20th century. So why would you say they shouldn't even be here? They were escaping the genocide on them by muslims of the Ottoman Empire. My grandparents were orthodox christian. The only reason why the muslims were trying to kill them is because they were christian and not muslim.

My dad and his sister were BORN here. They were citizens by birth. So just how do you believe they shouldn't even be here?

What Trump wants to do is deny those who are born here citizenship. Which is unconstitutional. And would have made my dad not a citizen of the United States of America. Even though he volunteered for the Army during the Korean War and served our country with honor.

Your attitude is illegal since my grandparents came here LEGALLY. Their records are in the Ellis Island records. Just like millions of other immigrants from the first part of the 20th century.

They most certainly had the right to come here to save their lives. Just like millions of others who came here to save their lives.

I guess you would have denied Jewish people the right to escape nazi Germany and certain death too. Even if they did it legally like my grandparents did in the first part of the 20th century.

 

[Boss]

With its most recent rulings finding that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' meant that US law applied to the individual in question.

You'll need to cite a source for this. I believe this is false.

Here's the definition of jurisdiction given by Blacks Law dictionary:

The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or ad- mitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient.

Law Dictionary: What is JURISDICTION? definition of JURISDICTION (Black's Law Dictionary)

So there's your 'specific legal definition'. Which is the application of law. And its generally applied geographically. All illegals are subject to our laws, subject to investigations, the pronouncement of sentences, etc..

And thus would be subject to the jurisdiction of the US per the specific legal definition of jurisdiction.

As for the most recent Supreme Court rulings citing the matter, you'll want to look at Plyler and Doe in 1982. In its footnotes, the following point appears:

"impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

And.....

"[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."

Plyler v. Doe | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

With the overwhelming majority of historical emphasis on jurisdiction being about geographic boundaries.

At the very, very least.....there's plenty of room for interpretation. And plenty of need for it. Simply obliterating your previous assertion that neither are necessary.

You are presenting a narrow legal definition of "jurisdiction" as it applies to court jurisdiction or boundary of law. This has nothing to do with the intent of the phrase "subject to jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th. If that is what it meant, it is completely unnecessary because geographical boundary has already been established. We already understand they are in the US and subject to US law.... it need not be stated again.

It doesn't matter what the 'colloquial' definition is or what is popularly or historically used. What matters is what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means in this context...

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

 

[sealybobo]

No, that is NOT what it says.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside

Actually, this is precisely what it says.

Thanks!

(Illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof").

No one is giving undocumented people citizenship.

The citizenship is being given to the person who was born in America. They are citizens just like everyone else born in America.

Stop lying.

They shouldn't be. Their parents shouldn't even be here and neither should they.

That's like me running up to Trump while he's peeing and shove his penis in my butt so I can sue him for rape.

My grandparents came here legally just like millions of other people came here in the beginning of the 20th century. So why would you say they shouldn't even be here? They were escaping the genocide on them by muslims of the Ottoman Empire. My grandparents were orthodox christian. The only reason why the muslims were trying to kill them is because they were christian and not muslim.

My dad and his sister were BORN here. They were citizens by birth. So just how do you believe they shouldn't even be here?

What Trump wants to do is deny those who are born here citizenship. Which is unconstitutional. And would have made my dad not a citizen of the United States of America. Even though he volunteered for the Army during the Korean War and served our country with honor.

Your attitude is illegal since my grandparents came here LEGALLY. Their records are in the Ellis Island records. Just like millions of other immigrants from the first part of the 20th century.

They most certainly had the right to come here to save their lives. Just like millions of others who came here to save their lives.

I guess you would have denied Jewish people the right to escape nazi Germany and certain death too. Even if they did it legally like my grandparents did in the first part of the 20th century.

I'll read the rest but first I meant if the parents shouldn't be here the kid shouldn't be here.

If someone's here legally on a visitor or work visa, your kid is Mexican. Has to go where you go. And if you ain't legal you gotta go. Or apply for citizenship and we'll review you.

PS. My dad came from Greece age 17. My mom's dad came illegally but my grandmother came legal. Actually she was born here, went back to Greece then she came back when she was in her 20s and met my illegal immigrant grandfather. Lol

 

[Boss]

My grandparents came here legally just like millions of other people came here...

My grandparents were already here as were their grandparents but back in the late 1600s, my ancestors did come here and marry Native Americans. They also married Asians from Japan and Creoles from the Caribbean, and even some Africans. I have a very diverse genealogy. I am not opposed to immigration or immigrants in any way shape or form.

This continues to be an abhorrent lie perpetrated by the left and I am glad Mr. Trump has exposed it for what it is. This is not about immigration! LEGAL immigration! What YOU are advocating is a complete detriment to LEGAL immigration, it makes it pointless!

 

[Boss]

I didn't assume anything about your politics. I said I was offended that you keep talking about immigration policy when the discussion is about illegal border crossing. Then I started a new paragraph and talked about how this was the problem with the left. I didn't say you were part of the left. Just because you are flooding the board with left-wing lies and propaganda from openborders.org doesn't mean you're a liberal.

When the fucking Constitution says Congress has power to set naturalization laws, I don't need to "interpret" that... it's clear and unambiguous to me.

The 'fucking' constitution also says this:

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

That's pretty cut and dry as well. And by many accounts would override any law by congress regarding naturalization that restricted birthright citizenship. That definitely requires some interpretation because there are passages of the constituition that are potentially in conflict.

That you ignore the 14th amendment doesn't mean its any less authoritative. And if the 14th amendment grants citizenship to any person born here, then a law by congress saying otherwise would violate the constitution. Something congress doesn't have the authority to do.

This has been covered in this thread.

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

If all you need is to be born on US soil to become a citizen, the red part wouldn't be there. It is totally unnecessary, IF that was what the 14th intended to convey. It is not a meaningless term and it isn't a term that has no purpose. Some airheads will argue that it just means "here in the US" but why be redundant with a Constitutional amendment? It just stated "in the United States" ...so why state the same thing again in another way?

Again, not everyone in the u.s. Is under our jurisdiction. That phrase is in there to exclude diplomats. Why do you keep ignoring that point?

It is not there just to exclude diplomats. It is there to exclude anyone who is not under complete jurisdiction of the US and/or state. An illegal alien is not under complete jurisdiction. The word "jurisdiction" has a specific legal meaning, it is not talking about geographical boundaries, it means; political allegiance owed.

Again... Six years prior to the famous Wong case the libtards are parading around in support of their gross misinterpretation of the 14th, the SCOTUS emphatically ruled against birthright citizenship for a Native Freaking American! In the Wong case, they found Wong met the criteria of "jurisdiction" because the immigrants were LEGAL. In the case of the Native American six years before, they didn't meet the "jurisdiction" requirement because they had allegiance to their tribe.

Bull. It has nothing to do with allegiance.

That's precisely what it has to do with.

 

[sealybobo]

No, that is NOT what it says.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside

Actually, this is precisely what it says.

Thanks!

(Illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof").

No one is giving undocumented people citizenship.

The citizenship is being given to the person who was born in America. They are citizens just like everyone else born in America.

Stop lying.

They shouldn't be. Their parents shouldn't even be here and neither should they.

That's like me running up to Trump while he's peeing and shove his penis in my butt so I can sue him for rape.

My grandparents came here legally just like millions of other people came here in the beginning of the 20th century. So why would you say they shouldn't even be here? They were escaping the genocide on them by muslims of the Ottoman Empire. My grandparents were orthodox christian. The only reason why the muslims were trying to kill them is because they were christian and not muslim.

My dad and his sister were BORN here. They were citizens by birth. So just how do you believe they shouldn't even be here?

What Trump wants to do is deny those who are born here citizenship. Which is unconstitutional. And would have made my dad not a citizen of the United States of America. Even though he volunteered for the Army during the Korean War and served our country with honor.

Your attitude is illegal since my grandparents came here LEGALLY. Their records are in the Ellis Island records. Just like millions of other immigrants from the first part of the 20th century.

They most certainly had the right to come here to save their lives. Just like millions of others who came here to save their lives.

I guess you would have denied Jewish people the right to escape nazi Germany and certain death too. Even if they did it legally like my grandparents did in the first part of the 20th century.

They didn't have the right to come here because we had the right to deny them. We let them in.

We treat illegal Cubans different than we do Mexicans or people from the Dominican republic. Or Chinese. We may have more illegal Chinese than Mexicans here. Can you believe that?

Glad you made it but keep in mind no country let's everyone in, nor should they.

 

[Boss]

Edit - sorry sent too soon. The 14th amendment says that everyone born in the US is automatically a citizen.

No, that is NOT what it says.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside

Actually, this is precisely what it says.

Thanks!

(Illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof").

No one is giving undocumented people citizenship.

The citizenship is being given to the person who was born in America. They are citizens just like everyone else born in America.

Stop lying.

Again... NOTHING in the Constitution confers birthright citizenship.... It's just not there!