"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Oldglory1]

What you are doing here is something that Jefferson warned would happen:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

You don't care about what the author meant. You only care that you can twist their words to get the results you want.

Mark

I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.

Again the plain language:

"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 is very inclusive.

If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.

But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.

Otherwise- the language is very clear.

When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.

In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.

But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?

Mark

So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.


"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 is very inclusive.

If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.

But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.

Otherwise- the language is very clear

Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.

Mark

The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.

Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents. They were legal residents of this country.

 

[barryqwalsh]

Born in Australia on or after 20 August 1986
General
People born in Australia (including Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island) on or after 20 August 1986 are Australian citizens by birth if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or a permanent resident at the time of the person’s birth.

Passport Manual - Publications - Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

 

[Syriusly]

I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.

Again the plain language:

"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 is very inclusive.

If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.

But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.

Otherwise- the language is very clear.

When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.

In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.

But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?

Mark

So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.


"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 is very inclusive.

If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.

But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.

Otherwise- the language is very clear

Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.

Mark

The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.

Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents. They were legal residents of this country.

Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.

If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.

Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

They never envisioned women voting either.

And? That was because they understood the writers intent. As we should as well.

Mark

they understood the writers intent- which was never to treat women as legally equal to men.

So they changed the Constitution so women had the vote.

Don't like the Constitution- change it.

The Constitution has been interpreted differently by different courts. My hope is that a future court gets it right.

Mark

So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.


"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 is very inclusive.

If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.

But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.

Otherwise- the language is very clear

Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.

Mark

The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.

And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.

Mark

And if wishes were horses, beggars would be riding.

Hey, I'm simply using a liberal tactic to get the results I want. I have to say, they are good teachers.

Mark

So you are using tactics you admire- or using tactics you disapprove of?

 

[Syriusly]

The way Jacob Howard stated it.

So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

"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 can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.

Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.

Feel free to stop parroting your same old crap.

I have said before- you don't like the 14th Amendment then change it. The Amendment process is there for that purpose.

I however, defend the Constitution from those who would try to twist the clear language of the Constitution.

Jacob Howard made it perfectly clear what he was writing when he wrote the amendment. You are in DENIAL.

Of course he is denial and he keeps asking the same old question over and over that has already been answered.. He's starting to sound like a parrot. All foreigners here on our soil are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws aka justice but that in no way means that their kids born on our soil are citizens of this country because the parents were not under our FULL jurisdiction and their newborns aren't either. What part of that aren't they getting about the qualifying word of "AND" subject to our jurisdiction? As I said, there would be no need for that qualifying word if they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction in every way.

How are they not subject to our full jurisdiction?

Simple question- and if you can't answer it- then you can't answer why they are not subject to the 14th Amendment.

 

[Unkotare]

Time we test it once and for all for clarification. ...

The law is clear as it is, oldgloryhole. YOU will not "test" anything. YOU will just sit there scratching yourself and whining on the internet.

 

[Flopper]

So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.


"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 is very inclusive.

If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.

But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.

Otherwise- the language is very clear

Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.

Mark

The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.

And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.

Mark

It's certainly possibly for the Supreme Court to reverse it's the decision but it's quite rare for them to do so.

A ruling that struct down birthright citizenship would at a minimum bring into question the citizenship of any child born in the US. The birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship.

A case has never been brought before the Supreme Court to test and interpret the meaning of the 14th. It has merely been an assumption that children of illegal aliens are birthright citizens. Time we test it once and for all for clarification. You made this same stupid claim before that questions would arise on the citizenship of everyone. I already debunked you on that.. Do I have to repeat that to you once again just like you constantly asking the same questions over and over even though they have been answered? All one would have to do is to provide proof that their parents were either citizens of this country or legal residents. Besides, once interpreted correctly it would only affect future births on our soil.

You really should do a little research before you start writing.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A case that would deny a child born in the US citizenship would never make it to the Supreme Court. With the clarity of the citizenship clause and the precedent set by the Wong Kim Ark case, SOCTUS would never hear the case.

 

[Flopper]

Born in Australia on or after 20 August 1986
General
People born in Australia (including Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island) on or after 20 August 1986 are Australian citizens by birth if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or a permanent resident at the time of the person’s birth.

Passport Manual - Publications - Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Thus the citizenship of anyone born in Australia after that date could be challenged based on linage, similar to the race determination rules in old South.

 

[barryqwalsh]

No, it is not about race. A child born in Australia is not automatically an Australian citizens unless at least one of his/her parents is an Australian citizen or permanent resident.

This is perfectly reasonable policy. Pregnant women can't arrive, give birth and their child acquiring Australian citizenship
automatically.

 

[barryqwalsh]

It is the same in most of the world, birth in a country ddoesn't automatically give you citizenship of that county.

 

[barryqwalsh]

"Being born in the UK doesn’t automatically give you British citizenship."


British passport eligibility - GOV.UK

 

[barryqwalsh]

Changes to Citizenship by Birth in New Zealand


http://www.dia.govt.nz/Services-Cit...-Zealand-from-2006-Frequently-Asked-Questions

 

[Oldglory1]

When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.

In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.

But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?

Mark

So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.


"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 is very inclusive.

If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.

But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.

Otherwise- the language is very clear

Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.

Mark

The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.

Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents. They were legal residents of this country.

Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.

If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.

Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

 

[Herodotus]

Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

You are making a common mistake of laypersons. The Court did not need to discuss illegal aliens in order to define what "subject to the jurisdiction" means. It did define such phase comprehensibly and such definition was the necessary for the disposition of the case and hence is considered part of the holding of the case. Hence, such definition is binding precedent unless and until the Court revisits the issue and, accordingly, it has been followed for the past century (even being approved of in later dicta of the Court relating to illegal aliens). The Court said such phrase was meant to adopt the English common law rule and hence to only exclude persons subject to the privilege of extraterritoriality (i.e., children of Ambassadors and invading armies). One simply cannot exclude illegal aliens under this definition. Perhaps the Court will make a distinction with respect to illegals in the future, but it would be difficult based upon the clear language of the Amendment.

It is worth noting that many of the slaves the Amendment was intended to apply to were children of slaves brought here illegally as importing slaves had been illegal for more than a half century, but they continued to be smuggled into the country. No one suggested the legal status of the parents was relevant. Only birth on the soil mattered.

 

[Syriusly]

So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.


"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 is very inclusive.

If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.

But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.

Otherwise- the language is very clear

Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.

Mark

The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.

Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents. They were legal residents of this country.

Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.

If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.

Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

Nor did I say that Wong Kim Ark discussed children born of illegal aliens- I said Wong Kim Ark discussed aliens, foreigners

Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.

If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.

Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And you still can't answer that question.

So its not that you disagree with how the 14th Amendment is being interpreted- you just disagree with the language of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

It is the same in most of the world, birth in a country ddoesn't automatically give you citizenship of that county.

Well you best get busy if you want to change the 14th Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

THE only persons born in the United States who are not born U.S. citizens are those born in the United States but not within the jurisidiction of the United States.

I have been asking for days now- give us an example how the child born in the United States born to illegal aliens- is not within the jurisidiction of the United States.

If you can't answer that simple question, you either are lying about the 14th Amendment, or just can't read it.

 

[Flopper]

So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.


"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 is very inclusive.

If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.

But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.

Otherwise- the language is very clear

Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.

Mark

The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.

Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents. They were legal residents of this country.

Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.

If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.

Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

In regard to the interpretation of the citizenship clause, there can be only one issue to consider; is the child born in the United States under jurisdiction of the United States.? There is no other issue to be considered. If congress had wanted to exclude some groups such as criminals or foreigners, they would certainly have done so.

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.

The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase (under the jurisdiciton) referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Flopper]

I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.

Again the plain language:

"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 is very inclusive.

If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.

But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.

Otherwise- the language is very clear.

When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.

In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.

But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?

Mark

So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.


"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 is very inclusive.

If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.

But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.

Otherwise- the language is very clear

Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.

Mark

The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.

Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents. They were legal residents of this country.

In interpreting the citizenship clause, it makes no difference what the parents are. It is the interpretation of the phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof. In the Wong case ruling the court consider the phrase to mean, "being required to obey US law."

 

[Oldglory1]

When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.

In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.

But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?

Mark

So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.


"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 is very inclusive.

If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.

But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.

Otherwise- the language is very clear

Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.

Mark

The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.

Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents. They were legal residents of this country.

In interpreting the citizenship clause, it makes no difference what the parents are. It is the interpretation of the phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof. In the Wong case ruling the court consider the phrase to mean, "being required to obey US law."[/QUOTE"

Diplomats are required to obey our laws while on our soil also but their kids born on our soil do not attain birthright citizenship for the same reason that illegal aliens don't according to the 14th. Keep grasping at straws. It's fun to watch.