Why Donald Trump is Right About Changing Anchor Baby Law Without Constitutional Amendment

[Syriusly]

Trump is right. We need to stop it. In a few generations there will be just no Americans at all. I mean that there will be no white Americans but it seems like no one cares about us. We will be soon outnumbered by Hispanics and Blacks.

And there it is. That's what it's really all about. It's not about crime or jobs at all. It's about keeping America predominantly white.

Thank you for your honesty.

Bullshit. Another idiot and his racist card.

It's all about removing the illegals, people who are here illegally, out of the country.

You're an idiot.

Then why do you keep arguing about American citizens who are born here in the United States- rather than those who are here illegally?

My question is that the 14th was never meant to recognized everyone born in the US as a citizen.

It was meant strictly for ex slaves and their children.

So why is it interpreted to mean ANYONE born in the US when it wasn't meant to be??

Why do you believe any of that?

Congress- as they debated the 14th Amendment- discussed how the 14th Amendment would apply to anyone born in the United States regardless of their race. Some in Congress opposed the 14th Amendment because it meant that the son of Chinese parents would be recognized as a citizen.

It was intended to apply to anyone born in the United States- except children born to diplomats, children born of invading armies- and Indians born in 'sovereign Indian nations' not subject to U.S. laws(such as taxation).

It would have been easy for Congress to have written the 14th Amendment to make it explicitly apply only to the children of legal residents or citizens of the United States- but they chose not to do so- they chose the language 'subject to the jurisdiction'- which is very clear as anyone subject to the laws of the United States.

The language was intentionally precise:

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 you don't agree with that language- then you should be working to change the Constitution.

 

[Camp]

Trump is right. We need to stop it. In a few generations there will be just no Americans at all. I mean that there will be no white Americans but it seems like no one cares about us. We will be soon outnumbered by Hispanics and Blacks.

And there it is. That's what it's really all about. It's not about crime or jobs at all. It's about keeping America predominantly white.

Thank you for your honesty.

Bullshit. Another idiot and his racist card.

It's all about removing the illegals, people who are here illegally, out of the country.

You're an idiot.

Then why do you keep arguing about American citizens who are born here in the United States- rather than those who are here illegally?

Oh I have no love for illegals. They need to be kicked out of America

My question is that the 14th was never meant to recognized everyone born in the US as a citizen.

It was meant strictly for ex slaves and their children.

So why is it interpreted to mean ANYONE born in the US when it wasn't meant to be??

Because that is the way the people who voted for it wanted it. If they wanted a temporary fix that only dealt with slaves that is how they would have written it. They did not want a temporary fix. They wanted a permanent fix and solution that would be easy and simple to understand and interpret. That is why no one has challenged it for 150 years. It isn't even being seriously challenged today. Not in the courts or congress at least.

 

[Claudette]

Trump is right. We need to stop it. In a few generations there will be just no Americans at all. I mean that there will be no white Americans but it seems like no one cares about us. We will be soon outnumbered by Hispanics and Blacks.

And there it is. That's what it's really all about. It's not about crime or jobs at all. It's about keeping America predominantly white.

Thank you for your honesty.

Bullshit. Another idiot and his racist card.

It's all about removing the illegals, people who are here illegally, out of the country.

You're an idiot.

Then why do you keep arguing about American citizens who are born here in the United States- rather than those who are here illegally?

My question is that the 14th was never meant to recognized everyone born in the US as a citizen.

It was meant strictly for ex slaves and their children.

So why is it interpreted to mean ANYONE born in the US when it wasn't meant to be??

Why do you believe any of that?

Congress- as they debated the 14th Amendment- discussed how the 14th Amendment would apply to anyone born in the United States regardless of their race. Some in Congress opposed the 14th Amendment because it meant that the son of Chinese parents would be recognized as a citizen.

It was intended to apply to anyone born in the United States- except children born to diplomats, children born of invading armies- and Indians born in 'sovereign Indian nations' not subject to U.S. laws(such as taxation).

It would have been easy for Congress to have written the 14th Amendment to make it explicitly apply only to the children of legal residents or citizens of the United States- but they chose not to do so- they chose the language 'subject to the jurisdiction'- which is very clear as anyone subject to the laws of the United States.

The language was intentionally precise:

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 you don't agree with that language- then you should be working to change the Constitution.

Yes they should because I doubt anyone would have believed back then that we would be overrun with illegals having kids who are automatically US citizens. And the families of those US citizens being able to suck of social services. Social services that didn't exist back then.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And there it is. That's what it's really all about. It's not about crime or jobs at all. It's about keeping America predominantly white.

Thank you for your honesty.

Bullshit. Another idiot and his racist card.

It's all about removing the illegals, people who are here illegally, out of the country.

You're an idiot.

Then why do you keep arguing about American citizens who are born here in the United States- rather than those who are here illegally?

My question is that the 14th was never meant to recognized everyone born in the US as a citizen.

It was meant strictly for ex slaves and their children.

So why is it interpreted to mean ANYONE born in the US when it wasn't meant to be??

Why do you believe any of that?

Congress- as they debated the 14th Amendment- discussed how the 14th Amendment would apply to anyone born in the United States regardless of their race. Some in Congress opposed the 14th Amendment because it meant that the son of Chinese parents would be recognized as a citizen.

It was intended to apply to anyone born in the United States- except children born to diplomats, children born of invading armies- and Indians born in 'sovereign Indian nations' not subject to U.S. laws(such as taxation).

It would have been easy for Congress to have written the 14th Amendment to make it explicitly apply only to the children of legal residents or citizens of the United States- but they chose not to do so- they chose the language 'subject to the jurisdiction'- which is very clear as anyone subject to the laws of the United States.

The language was intentionally precise:

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 you don't agree with that language- then you should be working to change the Constitution.

Yes they should because I doubt anyone would have believed back then that we would be overrun with illegals having kids who are automatically US citizens. And the families of those US citizens being able to suck of social services. Social services that didn't exist back then.

Your doubts about then mean nothing about today. We need to work on immigration reform, all of us. Claudette, we (1) are not going back to 1965, and (2) are being coming an increasingly demographically diverse country, which we cannot stop.

 

[Claudette]

Bullshit. Another idiot and his racist card.

It's all about removing the illegals, people who are here illegally, out of the country.

You're an idiot.

Then why do you keep arguing about American citizens who are born here in the United States- rather than those who are here illegally?

My question is that the 14th was never meant to recognized everyone born in the US as a citizen.

It was meant strictly for ex slaves and their children.

So why is it interpreted to mean ANYONE born in the US when it wasn't meant to be??

Why do you believe any of that?

Congress- as they debated the 14th Amendment- discussed how the 14th Amendment would apply to anyone born in the United States regardless of their race. Some in Congress opposed the 14th Amendment because it meant that the son of Chinese parents would be recognized as a citizen.

It was intended to apply to anyone born in the United States- except children born to diplomats, children born of invading armies- and Indians born in 'sovereign Indian nations' not subject to U.S. laws(such as taxation).

It would have been easy for Congress to have written the 14th Amendment to make it explicitly apply only to the children of legal residents or citizens of the United States- but they chose not to do so- they chose the language 'subject to the jurisdiction'- which is very clear as anyone subject to the laws of the United States.

The language was intentionally precise:

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 you don't agree with that language- then you should be working to change the Constitution.

Yes they should because I doubt anyone would have believed back then that we would be overrun with illegals having kids who are automatically US citizens. And the families of those US citizens being able to suck of social services. Social services that didn't exist back then.

Your doubts about then mean nothing about today. We need to work on immigration reform, all of us. Claudette, we (1) are not going back to 1965, and (2) are being coming an increasingly demographically diverse country, which we cannot stop.

What you say is correct and we do need immigration reform. We also need that amendment revised big time.

 

[Syriusly]

And there it is. That's what it's really all about. It's not about crime or jobs at all. It's about keeping America predominantly white.

Thank you for your honesty.

Bullshit. Another idiot and his racist card.

It's all about removing the illegals, people who are here illegally, out of the country.

You're an idiot.

Then why do you keep arguing about American citizens who are born here in the United States- rather than those who are here illegally?

My question is that the 14th was never meant to recognized everyone born in the US as a citizen.

It was meant strictly for ex slaves and their children.

So why is it interpreted to mean ANYONE born in the US when it wasn't meant to be??

Why do you believe any of that?

Congress- as they debated the 14th Amendment- discussed how the 14th Amendment would apply to anyone born in the United States regardless of their race. Some in Congress opposed the 14th Amendment because it meant that the son of Chinese parents would be recognized as a citizen.

It was intended to apply to anyone born in the United States- except children born to diplomats, children born of invading armies- and Indians born in 'sovereign Indian nations' not subject to U.S. laws(such as taxation).

It would have been easy for Congress to have written the 14th Amendment to make it explicitly apply only to the children of legal residents or citizens of the United States- but they chose not to do so- they chose the language 'subject to the jurisdiction'- which is very clear as anyone subject to the laws of the United States.

The language was intentionally precise:

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 you don't agree with that language- then you should be working to change the Constitution.

Yes they should because I doubt anyone would have believed back then that we would be overrun with illegals having kids who are automatically US citizens. And the families of those US citizens being able to suck of social services. Social services that didn't exist back then.

Back then there were no 'illegals' because our borders were wide open.

There was no 'illegal immigration' from Mexico- they just rode across the border. And if they had kids here, their kids were American citizens.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then why do you keep arguing about American citizens who are born here in the United States- rather than those who are here illegally?

My question is that the 14th was never meant to recognized everyone born in the US as a citizen.

It was meant strictly for ex slaves and their children.

So why is it interpreted to mean ANYONE born in the US when it wasn't meant to be??

Why do you believe any of that?

Congress- as they debated the 14th Amendment- discussed how the 14th Amendment would apply to anyone born in the United States regardless of their race. Some in Congress opposed the 14th Amendment because it meant that the son of Chinese parents would be recognized as a citizen.

It was intended to apply to anyone born in the United States- except children born to diplomats, children born of invading armies- and Indians born in 'sovereign Indian nations' not subject to U.S. laws(such as taxation).

It would have been easy for Congress to have written the 14th Amendment to make it explicitly apply only to the children of legal residents or citizens of the United States- but they chose not to do so- they chose the language 'subject to the jurisdiction'- which is very clear as anyone subject to the laws of the United States.

The language was intentionally precise:

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 you don't agree with that language- then you should be working to change the Constitution.

Yes they should because I doubt anyone would have believed back then that we would be overrun with illegals having kids who are automatically US citizens. And the families of those US citizens being able to suck of social services. Social services that didn't exist back then.

Your doubts about then mean nothing about today. We need to work on immigration reform, all of us. Claudette, we (1) are not going back to 1965, and (2) are being coming an increasingly demographically diverse country, which we cannot stop.

What you say is correct and we do need immigration reform. We also need that amendment revised big time.

The first must happen. The second won't happen.

 

[paddymurphy]

And there it is. That's what it's really all about. It's not about crime or jobs at all. It's about keeping America predominantly white.

Thank you for your honesty.

Bullshit. Another idiot and his racist card.

It's all about removing the illegals, people who are here illegally, out of the country.

You're an idiot.

Then why do you keep arguing about American citizens who are born here in the United States- rather than those who are here illegally?

My question is that the 14th was never meant to recognized everyone born in the US as a citizen.

It was meant strictly for ex slaves and their children.

So why is it interpreted to mean ANYONE born in the US when it wasn't meant to be??

Why do you believe any of that?

Congress- as they debated the 14th Amendment- discussed how the 14th Amendment would apply to anyone born in the United States regardless of their race. Some in Congress opposed the 14th Amendment because it meant that the son of Chinese parents would be recognized as a citizen.

It was intended to apply to anyone born in the United States- except children born to diplomats, children born of invading armies- and Indians born in 'sovereign Indian nations' not subject to U.S. laws(such as taxation).

It would have been easy for Congress to have written the 14th Amendment to make it explicitly apply only to the children of legal residents or citizens of the United States- but they chose not to do so- they chose the language 'subject to the jurisdiction'- which is very clear as anyone subject to the laws of the United States.

The language was intentionally precise:

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 you don't agree with that language- then you should be working to change the Constitution.

Yes they should because I doubt anyone would have believed back then that we would be overrun with illegals having kids who are automatically US citizens. And the families of those US citizens being able to suck of social services. Social services that didn't exist back then.

And if you believe that we are now "overrun with illegals having kids" you are an idiot. There has been net zero illegal immigration int he last seven years. Do you know what that means? It means there has not been an increase in the number of illegals in seven years. And the 11 million that are here are working, paying taxes, raising their kids and contributing to this nation.

 

[Claudette]

Bullshit. Another idiot and his racist card.

It's all about removing the illegals, people who are here illegally, out of the country.

You're an idiot.

Then why do you keep arguing about American citizens who are born here in the United States- rather than those who are here illegally?

My question is that the 14th was never meant to recognized everyone born in the US as a citizen.

It was meant strictly for ex slaves and their children.

So why is it interpreted to mean ANYONE born in the US when it wasn't meant to be??

Why do you believe any of that?

Congress- as they debated the 14th Amendment- discussed how the 14th Amendment would apply to anyone born in the United States regardless of their race. Some in Congress opposed the 14th Amendment because it meant that the son of Chinese parents would be recognized as a citizen.

It was intended to apply to anyone born in the United States- except children born to diplomats, children born of invading armies- and Indians born in 'sovereign Indian nations' not subject to U.S. laws(such as taxation).

It would have been easy for Congress to have written the 14th Amendment to make it explicitly apply only to the children of legal residents or citizens of the United States- but they chose not to do so- they chose the language 'subject to the jurisdiction'- which is very clear as anyone subject to the laws of the United States.

The language was intentionally precise:

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 you don't agree with that language- then you should be working to change the Constitution.

Yes they should because I doubt anyone would have believed back then that we would be overrun with illegals having kids who are automatically US citizens. And the families of those US citizens being able to suck of social services. Social services that didn't exist back then.

Back then there were no 'illegals' because our borders were wide open.

There was no 'illegal immigration' from Mexico- they just rode across the border. And if they had kids here, their kids were American citizens.

You're right on that one.

All of our borders were wide open and no one cared who came and went in and out of America. Those that passed that amendment had no way of knowing we would be overrun with illegals and try to monitor who came and went at our borders.

They would have no way of knowing the cost of these illegals or the anchor baby allowing them to suck off social services that didn't exist back then.

If they had known I think they would have written the 14th vastly differently.

 

[Claudette]

Bullshit. Another idiot and his racist card.

It's all about removing the illegals, people who are here illegally, out of the country.

You're an idiot.

Then why do you keep arguing about American citizens who are born here in the United States- rather than those who are here illegally?

My question is that the 14th was never meant to recognized everyone born in the US as a citizen.

It was meant strictly for ex slaves and their children.

So why is it interpreted to mean ANYONE born in the US when it wasn't meant to be??

Why do you believe any of that?

Congress- as they debated the 14th Amendment- discussed how the 14th Amendment would apply to anyone born in the United States regardless of their race. Some in Congress opposed the 14th Amendment because it meant that the son of Chinese parents would be recognized as a citizen.

It was intended to apply to anyone born in the United States- except children born to diplomats, children born of invading armies- and Indians born in 'sovereign Indian nations' not subject to U.S. laws(such as taxation).

It would have been easy for Congress to have written the 14th Amendment to make it explicitly apply only to the children of legal residents or citizens of the United States- but they chose not to do so- they chose the language 'subject to the jurisdiction'- which is very clear as anyone subject to the laws of the United States.

The language was intentionally precise:

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 you don't agree with that language- then you should be working to change the Constitution.

Yes they should because I doubt anyone would have believed back then that we would be overrun with illegals having kids who are automatically US citizens. And the families of those US citizens being able to suck of social services. Social services that didn't exist back then.

And if you believe that we are now "overrun with illegals having kids" you are an idiot. There has been net zero illegal immigration int he last seven years. Do you know what that means? It means there has not been an increase in the number of illegals in seven years. And the 11 million that are here are working, paying taxes, raising their kids and contributing to this nation.

No you're the idiot.

Go to California and see how many hospitals have closed because illegals don't pay for medical care.

Go to the local food store and see how many are using EBT cards via that anchor baby they are carrying.

Go down to your social services and find out how many families of anchor babies are collecting welfare, Medicaid and everything else they can collect.

Oh and don't expect social services to tell you anything because its none of your business. You're tax dollar is supporting these freeloaders but it will still be none of your business.

If that works for you then you are an even bigger idiot then I think you are.

 

[paddymurphy]

Then why do you keep arguing about American citizens who are born here in the United States- rather than those who are here illegally?

My question is that the 14th was never meant to recognized everyone born in the US as a citizen.

It was meant strictly for ex slaves and their children.

So why is it interpreted to mean ANYONE born in the US when it wasn't meant to be??

Why do you believe any of that?

Congress- as they debated the 14th Amendment- discussed how the 14th Amendment would apply to anyone born in the United States regardless of their race. Some in Congress opposed the 14th Amendment because it meant that the son of Chinese parents would be recognized as a citizen.

It was intended to apply to anyone born in the United States- except children born to diplomats, children born of invading armies- and Indians born in 'sovereign Indian nations' not subject to U.S. laws(such as taxation).

It would have been easy for Congress to have written the 14th Amendment to make it explicitly apply only to the children of legal residents or citizens of the United States- but they chose not to do so- they chose the language 'subject to the jurisdiction'- which is very clear as anyone subject to the laws of the United States.

The language was intentionally precise:

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 you don't agree with that language- then you should be working to change the Constitution.

Yes they should because I doubt anyone would have believed back then that we would be overrun with illegals having kids who are automatically US citizens. And the families of those US citizens being able to suck of social services. Social services that didn't exist back then.

Back then there were no 'illegals' because our borders were wide open.

There was no 'illegal immigration' from Mexico- they just rode across the border. And if they had kids here, their kids were American citizens.

You're right on that one.

All of our borders were wide open and no one cared who came and went in and out of America. Those that passed that amendment had no way of knowing we would be overrun with illegals and try to monitor who came and went at our borders.

They would have no way of knowing the cost of these illegals or the anchor baby allowing them to suck off social services that didn't exist back then.

If they had known I think they would have written the 14th vastly differently.

This country depended on unlimited immigration. They would not have changed a thing because to do so would have stunted our growth as a nation. You are correct, however, that the only to change birthright citizenship is to amend the constitution. That, however, will not happen.

 

[Claudette]

Then why do you keep arguing about American citizens who are born here in the United States- rather than those who are here illegally?

My question is that the 14th was never meant to recognized everyone born in the US as a citizen.

It was meant strictly for ex slaves and their children.

So why is it interpreted to mean ANYONE born in the US when it wasn't meant to be??

Why do you believe any of that?

Congress- as they debated the 14th Amendment- discussed how the 14th Amendment would apply to anyone born in the United States regardless of their race. Some in Congress opposed the 14th Amendment because it meant that the son of Chinese parents would be recognized as a citizen.

It was intended to apply to anyone born in the United States- except children born to diplomats, children born of invading armies- and Indians born in 'sovereign Indian nations' not subject to U.S. laws(such as taxation).

It would have been easy for Congress to have written the 14th Amendment to make it explicitly apply only to the children of legal residents or citizens of the United States- but they chose not to do so- they chose the language 'subject to the jurisdiction'- which is very clear as anyone subject to the laws of the United States.

The language was intentionally precise:

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 you don't agree with that language- then you should be working to change the Constitution.

Yes they should because I doubt anyone would have believed back then that we would be overrun with illegals having kids who are automatically US citizens. And the families of those US citizens being able to suck of social services. Social services that didn't exist back then.

Back then there were no 'illegals' because our borders were wide open.

There was no 'illegal immigration' from Mexico- they just rode across the border. And if they had kids here, their kids were American citizens.

You're right on that one.

All of our borders were wide open and no one cared who came and went in and out of America. Those that passed that amendment had no way of knowing we would be overrun with illegals and try to monitor who came and went at our borders.

They would have no way of knowing the cost of these illegals or the anchor baby allowing them to suck off social services that didn't exist back then.

If they had known I think they would have written the 14th vastly differently.

This is what it takes to change it.

To amend the U.S. Constitution, the change would require a two-thirds majority vote in both the Senate and House of Representatives, and then it would require approval by three-fourths of the states -- at least 38 of the 50.

One wonders why none of the Clowns in DC and those running the States haven't pushed for this since its costing State and Fed tax money to support these anchor babies an their families.

 

[Claudette]

My question is that the 14th was never meant to recognized everyone born in the US as a citizen.

It was meant strictly for ex slaves and their children.

So why is it interpreted to mean ANYONE born in the US when it wasn't meant to be??

Why do you believe any of that?

Congress- as they debated the 14th Amendment- discussed how the 14th Amendment would apply to anyone born in the United States regardless of their race. Some in Congress opposed the 14th Amendment because it meant that the son of Chinese parents would be recognized as a citizen.

It was intended to apply to anyone born in the United States- except children born to diplomats, children born of invading armies- and Indians born in 'sovereign Indian nations' not subject to U.S. laws(such as taxation).

It would have been easy for Congress to have written the 14th Amendment to make it explicitly apply only to the children of legal residents or citizens of the United States- but they chose not to do so- they chose the language 'subject to the jurisdiction'- which is very clear as anyone subject to the laws of the United States.

The language was intentionally precise:

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 you don't agree with that language- then you should be working to change the Constitution.

Yes they should because I doubt anyone would have believed back then that we would be overrun with illegals having kids who are automatically US citizens. And the families of those US citizens being able to suck of social services. Social services that didn't exist back then.

Back then there were no 'illegals' because our borders were wide open.

There was no 'illegal immigration' from Mexico- they just rode across the border. And if they had kids here, their kids were American citizens.

You're right on that one.

All of our borders were wide open and no one cared who came and went in and out of America. Those that passed that amendment had no way of knowing we would be overrun with illegals and try to monitor who came and went at our borders.

They would have no way of knowing the cost of these illegals or the anchor baby allowing them to suck off social services that didn't exist back then.

If they had known I think they would have written the 14th vastly differently.

This country depended on unlimited immigration. They would not have changed a thing because to do so would have stunted our growth as a nation. You are correct, however, that the only to change birthright citizenship is to amend the constitution. That, however, will not happen.

Of course they did. They welcomed legal immigrants into America for decades. Those immigrants aren't needed so much anymore.

The illegals and their anchor babies are nothing but freeloaders sucking off our social services. The illegals get medical care from out hospitals and never pay for anything.

Go to Mexico and see how you are treated if you are there illegally. No one will roll out the red carpet for you.

 

[paddymurphy]

Then why do you keep arguing about American citizens who are born here in the United States- rather than those who are here illegally?

My question is that the 14th was never meant to recognized everyone born in the US as a citizen.

It was meant strictly for ex slaves and their children.

So why is it interpreted to mean ANYONE born in the US when it wasn't meant to be??

Why do you believe any of that?

Congress- as they debated the 14th Amendment- discussed how the 14th Amendment would apply to anyone born in the United States regardless of their race. Some in Congress opposed the 14th Amendment because it meant that the son of Chinese parents would be recognized as a citizen.

It was intended to apply to anyone born in the United States- except children born to diplomats, children born of invading armies- and Indians born in 'sovereign Indian nations' not subject to U.S. laws(such as taxation).

It would have been easy for Congress to have written the 14th Amendment to make it explicitly apply only to the children of legal residents or citizens of the United States- but they chose not to do so- they chose the language 'subject to the jurisdiction'- which is very clear as anyone subject to the laws of the United States.

The language was intentionally precise:

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 you don't agree with that language- then you should be working to change the Constitution.

Yes they should because I doubt anyone would have believed back then that we would be overrun with illegals having kids who are automatically US citizens. And the families of those US citizens being able to suck of social services. Social services that didn't exist back then.

And if you believe that we are now "overrun with illegals having kids" you are an idiot. There has been net zero illegal immigration int he last seven years. Do you know what that means? It means there has not been an increase in the number of illegals in seven years. And the 11 million that are here are working, paying taxes, raising their kids and contributing to this nation.

No you're the idiot.

Go to California and see how many hospitals have closed because illegals don't pay for medical care.

Go to the local food store and see how many are using EBT cards via that anchor baby they are carrying.

Go down to your social services and find out how many families of anchor babies are collecting welfare, Medicaid and everything else they can collect.

Oh and don't expect social services to tell you anything because its none of your business. You're tax dollar is supporting these freeloaders but it will still be none of your business.

If that works for you then you are an even bigger idiot then I think you are.

And you have to none of theses places. And, if you did, tell me how you can tell the difference between the 35 million Hispanic Americans who are citizens, many whose ancestors have lived in California and the southwest since before this country invaded and annexed those areas in the 1840s, and those who are not? Be specific. What physical characteristics do Hispanic Americans have that illegal aliens don't have?

 

[Claudette]

Since there are over eleven million of them in the country I'm sure you'll run into them sooner or later.

Oh and those Hispanics who are legal residents aren't liking the illegals much either.

Hispanic activists organizing In support of tougher immigration laws

 

[Dana7360]

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

1. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "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."

2. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:

• Is born in the United States
  
• Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power

• Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States

• Has parents that are in the United States for business

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[8] but it has generally been assumed that they are.[9]

The common law cited by the court granted birthright citizenship to any child, even born to two aliens, based merely on the location of birth.

The only time circumstances come into play is in the case of diplomats, invading armies, etc, where the parents weren't subject to US law. Illegals clearly are subject to US law (lest we couldn't deport them). Making this an uphill battle.

The overwhelming legal consensus on this issue is that Trump's argument is fucked.

These people are stupid.

Of course they fall under our jurisdiction. If they didn't they wouldn't be here illegally. If our laws don't apply to them then they aren't illegal.

If our laws don't apply to them then why are some of them prosecuted and put in prison when they are found to be committing a felony?

These people are just grasping at anything. They know that there's absolutely no way that they're going to amend the constitution so they're coming up with excuses to violate it and circumvent it.

It's just a bunch of garbage. Another way to distract the stupid people from the real issues we face today.

It's much more important to fix our schools, infrastructure and income inequality.

If these people were actually serious about the problem then they would be proposing solutions that can actually happen and make a difference.

They come here for jobs. Take away their ability to get a job and they won't come. The way to do that is to make hiring one a felony, give the government the ability to financially destroy the business then put all owners, ceos, executives and managers in prison. It will take that happening to only one business and no other business will ever hire an undocumented worker.

It's a solution that is possible. It won't cost billions of dollars, no one has to amend the constitution and it will actually succeed.

 

[Dana7360]

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

And why not pass a Constitutional Amendment in a States Constitutional Article V Convention anyway? There are plenty more corrections we can make while we have the hood up.

And there is the rub.

You and many others would be very, very willing to make other 'corrections' to the Constitution- and I doubt you would like the 'corrections' I would make- and i doubt I would like all of the corrections you would make.

Could you find consensus and write a Constitution as amazing as our original Constitution?

Hell we can't even get an immigration bill passed- there is no 'consensus' on how to fix our immigration issue(s).

Well go hide and cry in a corner because we are going to get an Article V Convention, because our legal schools are so fucked up they cannot teach jurists to actually read cases like US v Wong Kim Ark.

You seriously need to read that article in the constitution completely.

Here it is:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


Do you know how many times there's been a constitutional convention in America? ONCE. Do you know when it happened? When the constitution was originally written.

Do you know how many times article V has actually been used?

ZERO.

There have been many attempts.

Good luck with that.

 

[paddymurphy]

Since there are over eleven million of them in the country I'm sure you'll run into them sooner or later.

Oh and those Hispanics who are legal residents aren't liking the illegals much either.

Hispanic activists organizing In support of tougher immigration laws

What is the problem, Claudette? Why cant you explain to me how I can determine if the emergency room patient of Hispanic descent is illegal or an American Citizen? And do those activists speak for every American of Hispanic lineage? If they do, why then do poll after poll of Hispanic Americans show they feel just the opposite? And why do they vote in overwhelming numbers for the party that supports giving illegals a path to citizenship or permanent residency?

 

[Claudette]

Google is your friend. Look it up yourself idiot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

1. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "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."

2. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:

• Is born in the United States
  
• Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power

• Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States

• Has parents that are in the United States for business

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[8] but it has generally been assumed that they are.[9]

The common law cited by the court granted birthright citizenship to any child, even born to two aliens, based merely on the location of birth.

The only time circumstances come into play is in the case of diplomats, invading armies, etc, where the parents weren't subject to US law. Illegals clearly are subject to US law (lest we couldn't deport them). Making this an uphill battle.

The overwhelming legal consensus on this issue is that Trump's argument is fucked.

These people are stupid.

Of course they fall under our jurisdiction. If they didn't they wouldn't be here illegally. If our laws don't apply to them then they aren't illegal.

If our laws don't apply to them then why are some of them prosecuted and put in prison when they are found to be committing a felony?

These people are just grasping at anything. They know that there's absolutely no way that they're going to amend the constitution so they're coming up with excuses to violate it and circumvent it.

It's just a bunch of garbage. Another way to distract the stupid people from the real issues we face today.

It's much more important to fix our schools, infrastructure and income inequality.

If these people were actually serious about the problem then they would be proposing solutions that can actually happen and make a difference.

They come here for jobs. Take away their ability to get a job and they won't come. The way to do that is to make hiring one a felony, give the government the ability to financially destroy the business then put all owners, ceos, executives and managers in prison. It will take that happening to only one business and no other business will ever hire an undocumented worker.

It's a solution that is possible. It won't cost billions of dollars, no one has to amend the constitution and it will actually succeed.

Plyler v Doyle ruling states illegals have due process rights, but does not give birthright citizenship to anyone.

US v Wong Kim Ark states that the parents of the child need to have legal domicile and be here with the US governments permission. This was added to the jurisdictional condition in paragraph 96 and 118.

Your interpretation of the phrase 'under the jurisdiction of the United States' includes everyone thus making it a meaningless qualifier and a type of tautology. And no one that wrote the 14th Amendment intended for anything of the kind as granting illegals birthright citizenship and the SCOTUS in Wong gave a long list of those unqualified in paragraph 93.

Stop supporting the Open Borders Big Lie, you stupid fuck.