"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[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."

Again, everyone on our soil is required to obey our laws including diplomats and their families who don't get birthright citizenship. So why do you keep using this lame argument?

 

[Oldglory1]

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

Again, Wong Kim Ark wasn't about illegal aliens parents giving birth on our soil so why do you persist with your lame arguments?

 

[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.

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."

Again, everyone on our soil is required to obey our laws including diplomats and their families who don't get birthright citizenship. So why do you keep using this lame argument?

Diplomats who are given full immunity are not subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the United States. The Ambassador of Canada could murder someone on the streets of New York and he would not be subject to criminal prosecution in the United States unless Canada removed diplomatic immunity.

Virtually everyone else is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

If you disagree- feel free to show us anyone other than diplomats who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(1) Report to Congress
The Secretary of State shall prepare and submit to the Congress, annually, a report concerning diplomatic immunity entitled “Report on Cases Involving Diplomatic Immunity”.
(2) Content of report
In addition to such other information as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate, the report under paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) The number of persons residing in the United States who enjoy full immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the United States under laws extending diplomatic privileges and immunities.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Again, Wong Kim Ark wasn't about illegal aliens parents giving birth on our soil so why do you persist with your lame arguments?

Because his 'lame' arguments are the arguments of Wong Kim Ark- which unfortunately for you- describes jurisdiction- and is the reason why if you don't want 'anchor babies' you need to change the 14th Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

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."

Diplomat: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to his consulate.
Illegal alien: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to the police station where he is booked and jailed.

Which is subject to the jurisidiction and which is not?

 

[Oldglory1]

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.

And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands. They aren't even legal residents. Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil. You are mixing apples with oranges here. Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

 

[Oldglory1]

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

Again, Wong Kim Ark wasn't about illegal aliens parents giving birth on our soil so why do you persist with your lame arguments?

Because his 'lame' arguments are the arguments of Wong Kim Ark- which unfortunately for you- describes jurisdiction- and is the reason why if you don't want 'anchor babies' you need to change the 14th Amendment.

NO, that isn't what the arguments were about. The parents were in this country legally. So yes the claim is lame. I don't need to change anything... I don't have that kind of power only my voice which is what I am using with my congressman.. Congress needs to bring it to committee and on to the Supreme Court. Why do you "personally" want children of illegal aliens to gain citizenship in our country when it is causing us a fiscal burden and making a mockery out of our citizenship? Come on, at least have the guts to admit what your agenda is. Surely your not opposed to future amendments to our Constitution (not that it would be necessary in this case). Afterall it is the American way as an avid Constitutional scholar and protector of it that you claim to be, right:?

 

[Oldglory1]

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."

Diplomat: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to his consulate.
Illegal alien: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to the police station where he is booked and jailed.

Which is subject to the jurisidiction and which is not?

Wrong! You left out this little fact.
The few times diplomats have broken our laws, evidence has been handed over and the diplomat is repatriated to stand trail. Or in some cases, the given nation retracts diplomatic status to let the country prosecute the (now former) diplomat to the full extent of their own laws (this has also been done a few times when repatriation was impossible because the former diplomat had gone into hiding).


.

 

[Unkotare]

So why do you keep using this lame argument?

Why are you so incapable of understanding what the hell you are trying to talk about, oldgloryhole?

 

[Flopper]

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

That's true. Almost all of Europe and Asia countries do not have birthright citizenship. Jus sanguinis or right of blood dates back thousands of years. Citizenship has been determined by bloods line for centuries. This is how citizenship was determined in essentially all the civilized nations with exception of England.

Early Americans simply rejected the idea that one's place in society should be determined by one's linage. So it's not surprising that Americans would accept birthright citizenship. In Europe and Asia where lineage is more import than America, birthright citizenship never caught on. In the new world, Birthright citizenship spread throughout the Americas.

 

[Flopper]

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."

Diplomat: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to his consulate.
Illegal alien: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to the police station where he is booked and jailed.

Which is subject to the jurisidiction and which is not?

Wrong! You left out this little fact.
The few times diplomats have broken our laws, evidence has been handed over and the diplomat is repatriated to stand trail. Or in some cases, the given nation retracts diplomatic status to let the country prosecute the (now former) diplomat to the full extent of their own laws (this has also been done a few times when repatriation was impossible because the former diplomat had gone into hiding).


.

Yes, more of less. Diplomatic immunity is not what most people think it is. First off, the immunity is not just for diplomats. All employees of foreign governments who are present in the United States as official representatives of their home governments as well as their families are covered by diplomatic immunity.

There are about 100,000 people now covered by diplomatic immunity. Some of these persons are members of diplomatic missions, others are assigned to consular posts, and still others are employees of international organizations or members of national missions to such international organizations. For each of these categories of persons, particular rules apply and, even within these categories, different levels of immunity may be accorded to different classes of persons. For example diplomatic agents have compete immunity. They can be expelled from the US but they cannot be arrested nor forced to give testimony. Other categories of persons only have immunity as it applies to their official representation of their government. Service personnel can be arrested and charged with crimes but they can't be force to give testimony.

On TV, the criminal just cries diplomatic immunity and he escapes justice but that's TV, not the real world. Low level persons can be arrested and charged with crimes. Those with compete immunity may be expelled, however the embarrassment to his country usually brings on stiff penalties, sometimes worst than what might have been levied within the US.


http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/150546.pdf

 

[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.

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."

Again, everyone on our soil is required to obey our laws including diplomats and their families who don't get birthright citizenship. So why do you keep using this lame argument?

Because diplomatic agents are only expected to obey our laws but they can't be required to do so because they don't fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[protectionist]

So you're going to pretend that I didn't answer your question. That's not very helpful in winning debates. Right now, you're losing this one.

You didn't answer it.

Here let me ask the question again

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

You don't have to ask again. I answered it (twice now), and you know it, and you are just pretending. You can do that. No law against it., But it does make you look pretty stupid in this forum.

LOL....if you have to state that a poster looks stupid to other people its just another sign of you losing.

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

And you can't give an example.

Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

LOL- is that all you have- since you have admitted defeat by failing to provide a single example of how an illegal alien is not subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States?

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

And you can't give an example.

Not one.

You keep repeating. That's HARASSMENT. I'm reporting you.

 

[protectionist]

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.

All foreigners here on our soil are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws

"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"

Thank you for finally admitting that all children born in the United States are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- and therefore per the plain language of the 14th Amendment are born citizens.

You've been REPORTED, Mr. Troll.

 

[protectionist]

Of course there is . It is in Post # 132. Can't you read ?

What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation. In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.

Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

The amendment actually reads, "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."

Howard's intent is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment. It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.

FALSE! Howard's intent is 100% relevant, and it is the core of the amendment. At the time the amendment was written, it was so assumed (note the words > "of course") that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners, that it seen as simply understood, and not needed to be writtten in the amendment. It was felt that it was there just by assumption. If everything possible were to be put in every amendment, the Constitution would be trillions of pages long.
For the first amendment, regarding free speech, some things were not included in the amendment, which the amendment should, and does, include. These exceptions to the 1st amendment are now law in the USA, while still not being in the 1st amendment (ex. perjury, slander, libel, sedition, threats, fighting words, obscenity laws, etc)
What Congress intended, IS what Howard intended. It's just that, at the time, looking from foresight, nobody even dreamed of the ludicrous situation we have today where malicious, rogue countries (Mexico, China, India) use the absence of full specifics in the Constitution, (together with shameful Democrat et al political support) to invade the US and pillage it, as in the current 21st century style of imperialism they employ now, by way of remittances$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$

You are saying, "it was assumed that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners." How could that possible be a commonly accepted assumption? There were many thousands of children born to foreign parents in the US in the first half of the 18th century. Some were born during the 5 year residency requirement. Others were born to foreign parents who immigrated but never filed citizenship papers. Congress certainly would not have excluded their children from citizenship and written, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....".

The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people born in the United States and under US jurisdiction regardless of race, class, or gender. To claim Congress's intent was to exclude some children and include other is just not illogical.

Yet, they clearly did exclude with this clause......will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States,

That statement is attributed to Howard, the author of the amendment. It is not in the 14th amendment. In fact, the only criteria for citizenship in the amendment is in the first sentence of the amendment, "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." The only excursion that congress made was for those not under the jurisdiction of the United States, ambassadors, foreign minsters, and their families. The 14th Amendment was debated for months, and the wording was very, very carefully worked out. If they had meant to exclude any kind of people, aliens, children of aliens, they would have done so.

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

"excursion" ? When you learn how to speak English, maybe I'll debate you.

 

[protectionist]

FALSE! Howard's intent is 100% relevant$

No- sorry- your interpretation of Howard's intent- and the intent of everyone who approved of the Amendment, and the intent of the State's that approved the Amendment are immaterial when it comes to the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

Howard could have intended to mean all persons except Chinese- but the clear language of the 14th Amendment makes it clear it applies to everyone- except those who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Show me a so-called 'anchor baby' who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and we will have found someone who is not a citizen- but we already knew that children of diplomats don't become U.S. citizens.

Every anchor baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by virtue of being an illegal alien, just like their parents. The 14th amendment didn't have to say everything it could say. Does a law against arson say barbeques allowed ? I already gave the example of free speech. You are deliberately avoiding the truth, and pretending the 14th amendment is somehow different. Nobody here is falling for your ruse.
"Sorry", but you've already lost this debate, whether you pretend not to or not.

How are they not subject to the jurisdiction? Just one example is all I am asking for.

For example- I am subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- if I drive 100 miles an hour down the freeway, I can be pulled over and cited or arrested. IF I illegally import Cuban cigars, I can be arrested for selling Cuban cigars here.

So what laws are illegal aliens not under the jurisdiction of?

Since you are convinced that they are not subject to the jurisdiction you should be able to provide some examples of how they are not.

The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear- everyone born here is a citizen- IF they are born subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

The only example I can think of are children of diplomats- they are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

Stop telling us what you want the 14th Amendment to say- and tell us exactly how it doesn't apply to all children born in the United States- except children of diplomats.

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.

I already refuted all of this nonsense in previous posts. You're a phony.

 

[protectionist]

Every anchor baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by virtue of being an illegal alien, just like their parents. The 14th amendment didn't have to say everything it could say. Does a law against arson say barbeques allowed ? I already gave the example of free speech. You are deliberately avoiding the truth, and pretending the 14th amendment is somehow different. Nobody here is falling for your ruse.
"Sorry", but you've already lost this debate, whether you pretend not to or not.

How are they not subject to the jurisdiction? Just one example is all I am asking for.

For example- I am subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- if I drive 100 miles an hour down the freeway, I can be pulled over and cited or arrested. IF I illegally import Cuban cigars, I can be arrested for selling Cuban cigars here.

So what laws are illegal aliens not under the jurisdiction of?

Since you are convinced that they are not subject to the jurisdiction you should be able to provide some examples of how they are not.

The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear- everyone born here is a citizen- IF they are born subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

The only example I can think of are children of diplomats- they are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

Stop telling us what you want the 14th Amendment to say- and tell us exactly how it doesn't apply to all children born in the United States- except children of diplomats.

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

TROLL. PHONY.

 

[protectionist]

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.

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.

There is nothing for them to strike down. There is no such thing as birthright citizenship. It has never existed, except as a lie pushed by politicians. If a president deported anchor babies, he could not be challenged legally. There is nothing to challenge him with.

 

[protectionist]

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.

There doesn't need to be a case. As soon as Obama is out, the next president will deport millions of illegal aliens, including anchor babies.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

There doesn't need to be a case. As soon as Obama is out, the next president will deport millions of illegal aliens, including anchor babies.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States – citizens cannot be 'deported.'