Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Should this be changed to something like: The parent must be legal citizens and reside in America for at least five years.
No!
The Constitution is very clear. Plus many of our ancestors would not have been citizens, one must remember that.
No!
The Constitution is very clear. Plus many of our ancestors would not have been citizens, one must remember that.
Actually, the COTUS is very unclear . The 14th Amendment does NOT specify that the USG can unilaterally grant citizenship to any child who is born here by parents who have sneaked across the border.
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.
Much argument over what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.
My father would not be a citizen! Once the frightened, paranoid right gets on a kick and wants to change the constitution, watch out!No!
The Constitution is very clear. Plus many of our ancestors would not have been citizens, one must remember that.
My father would not be a citizen! Once the frightened, paranoid right gets on a kick and wants to change the constitution, watch out!No!
The Constitution is very clear. Plus many of our ancestors would not have been citizens, one must remember that.
No!
The Constitution is very clear. Plus many of our ancestors would not have been citizens, one must remember that.
Actually, the COTUS is very unclear . The 14th Amendment does NOT specify that the USG can unilaterally grant citizenship to any child who is born here by parents who have sneaked across the border.
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.
Much argument over what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.
No!
The Constitution is very clear. Plus many of our ancestors would not have been citizens, one must remember that.
Actually, the COTUS is very unclear . The 14th Amendment does NOT specify that the USG can unilaterally grant citizenship to any child who is born here by parents who have sneaked across the border.
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.
Much argument over what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.
Always seemed clear to me.
And subject to jurisdiction was more for slaves, so states could not deny them citizenship or other rights.
I wasn't worried. For one my ancestors have been here since the 1600's, my father's side came over in 1619, and my mother's side were Quakers, and the ones who were not were Native. My brother's have different Grandparents.Actually, the COTUS is very unclear . The 14th Amendment does NOT specify that the USG can unilaterally grant citizenship to any child who is born here by parents who have sneaked across the border.
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.
Much argument over what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.
Always seemed clear to me.
And subject to jurisdiction was more for slaves, so states could not deny them citizenship or other rights.
Actually, there is very little ancillary writings to the 14th and so we don't really know what was meant by under the jurisdiction of. A leading legal view is that only those who are legal residents are under the jurisdiction of the united states.
Oh PS - You're fears that your grandma will suddenly lose her citizenship are unfounded because no law or ruling can be applied retroactively
I wasn't worried. For one my ancestors have been here since the 1600's, my father's side came over in 1619, and my mother's side were Quakers, and the ones who were not were Native. My brother's have different Grandparents.Always seemed clear to me.
And subject to jurisdiction was more for slaves, so states could not deny them citizenship or other rights.
Actually, there is very little ancillary writings to the 14th and so we don't really know what was meant by under the jurisdiction of. A leading legal view is that only those who are legal residents are under the jurisdiction of the united states.
Oh PS - You're fears that your grandma will suddenly lose her citizenship are unfounded because no law or ruling can be applied retroactively
And it doesn't say anything about parents, just the person who is born here.
Should this be changed to something like: The parent must be legal citizens and reside in America for at least five years.
Obviously you are not either.I wasn't worried. For one my ancestors have been here since the 1600's, my father's side came over in 1619, and my mother's side were Quakers, and the ones who were not were Native. My brother's have different Grandparents.Actually, there is very little ancillary writings to the 14th and so we don't really know what was meant by under the jurisdiction of. A leading legal view is that only those who are legal residents are under the jurisdiction of the united states.
Oh PS - You're fears that your grandma will suddenly lose her citizenship are unfounded because no law or ruling can be applied retroactively
And it doesn't say anything about parents, just the person who is born here.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia explicitly brought the question of parents into the equation; and that is the entire crux of the situation. is there a difference between children born of legal immigrants and children born of illegal immigrants. The fact that you just admitted you didn't understand that shows that you are clearly not qualified to be discussing this topic.
Should this be changed to something like: The parent must be legal citizens and reside in America for at least five years.
Should this be changed to something like: The parent must be legal citizens and reside in America for at least five years.
Are you talking about "anchor babies"?
If so I would like to just say that the "anchor baby" laws were put in place so that the children of freed slaves would not have to worry about being deported.
That was the law's purpose. It was not put in place so any citizen of any country could come to america, give birth, and thus make their child an american citizen.
if anyone wants to debat this with me I'd love to.
Should this be changed to something like: The parent must be legal citizens and reside in America for at least five years.
There are plenty of flaws with that idea.
And furthermore, how does a case that has to do with legal aliens, that never mentioned illegal aliens, have to do with this? And was he found to be a citizen?I wasn't worried. For one my ancestors have been here since the 1600's, my father's side came over in 1619, and my mother's side were Quakers, and the ones who were not were Native. My brother's have different Grandparents.Actually, there is very little ancillary writings to the 14th and so we don't really know what was meant by under the jurisdiction of. A leading legal view is that only those who are legal residents are under the jurisdiction of the united states.
Oh PS - You're fears that your grandma will suddenly lose her citizenship are unfounded because no law or ruling can be applied retroactively
And it doesn't say anything about parents, just the person who is born here.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia explicitly brought the question of parents into the equation; and that is the entire crux of the situation. is there a difference between children born of legal immigrants and children born of illegal immigrants. The fact that you just admitted you didn't understand that shows that you are clearly not qualified to be discussing this topic.
Should this be changed to something like: The parent must be legal citizens and reside in America for at least five years.
Are you talking about "anchor babies"?
If so I would like to just say that the "anchor baby" laws were put in place so that the children of freed slaves would not have to worry about being deported.
That was the law's purpose. It was not put in place so any citizen of any country could come to america, give birth, and thus make their child an american citizen.
if anyone wants to debat this with me I'd love to.
That might not have been the intention, of course they didn't really have too many immigration laws back then, but it doesn't mean it isn't protecting "anchor babies". And the fact you don't see the similarities between slaves who were not considered full citizens, and illegals, is somewhat funny.
Are you talking about "anchor babies"?
If so I would like to just say that the "anchor baby" laws were put in place so that the children of freed slaves would not have to worry about being deported.
That was the law's purpose. It was not put in place so any citizen of any country could come to america, give birth, and thus make their child an american citizen.
if anyone wants to debat this with me I'd love to.
That might not have been the intention, of course they didn't really have too many immigration laws back then, but it doesn't mean it isn't protecting "anchor babies". And the fact you don't see the similarities between slaves who were not considered full citizens, and illegals, is somewhat funny.
When the 14th ammendment was ratified in 1868 (which is what we are talking about) the United States did not limit immigration. "Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of immigration laws was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified."
You will enjoy reading this link The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution lots of good and accurate info about the 14th ammendment. (BTW the part I italicized in my post above is from the link)
Should this be changed to something like: The parent must be legal citizens and reside in America for at least five years.
There are plenty of flaws with that idea.