"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[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.

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.

Well putting aside your bizarre fantasy that the next President will act differently on immigration than the last 40 Presidents, nothing can be more un-American than an American hoping than American citizens will be illegally shipped out of the country by the government of the United States

 

[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.

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.

Persons born in the United States have been considered citizens since at the least Wong Kim Ark- regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Those citizens have been given passports, have voted, have been drafted, and are treated exactly like any other American citizen.

Wong Kim Ark confirmed what has been the truth in the United States since its founding- that anyone born in the United States is an American citizen- the 14th Amendment really just overturned the Dred Scott decision.

If a President attempted to deport American citizens, he would of course be challenged- not by anyone on the right- because the issue of illegal aliens is an important issue to inflame their base- but by persons who cared about the Constitutional rights of Americans.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

So you can't address the issue at all- face it- you just hate that the Constitution protects Americans. That other than the right to possess firearms and the right to be a Christian you would just eliminate the Bill of Rights

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

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Talking to yourself is not refutation.

So where is an example of a person born in the United States, other than children of diplomats- who is not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

What a whiny weeny.

Harassment? I keep asking you for an honest answer- if demanding honesty is 'harrassment' when then I am guilty as charged

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

 

[Syriusly]

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).


.

I didn't leave out any 'fact'- a term which you are rather loose in your usage of.

Another poster has gone into details as to the various forms of diplomatic immunity, but presuming that the driver I mentioned had full diplomatic status, he would be given a ride back to his consulate.

And as I pointed out in an earlier post- the most the United States could do to him is expel him.

IF the diplomat's country chose to prosecute him that would put him in his home countries jurisdiction. If they waived diplomatic immunity- then after they do so he becomes in the jurisidiction of the United States- any child born to him after that would be subject to the jurisidiction of the United STates.

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=ilj
Diplomatic immunity, in the modern sense, can be broadly
defined as the freedom from local jurisdiction accorded the duly
certified diplomatic representatives of the sending state by the
receiving state under principles of international law. 14 The modern
law of diplomatic immunity is derived from centuries of practical
dealings among nations. 5 The United States has long recognized
the responsibilities imposed upon individual nations by force of international
custom, and treats the law of nations as the law of the
land. 16
The

 

[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.

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.

You repeating your claim is not refutation. Persons born in the United States often have dual citizenship- that does not change jurisdiction.

Remember the 14th Amendment is very clear- every persons born in the United States is a U.S. citizen- except those who are born here, but not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

You just don't agree with the 14th Amendment- you can't actually say how these children are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- you just really, really, really, don't want them to be citizens.

 

[Syriusly]

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:?

Why do you want to ignore the plain language of the 1rth Amendment?

I object to people like yourself deciding that just because you think the law is wrong, that it can be interpreted differently than what the language says.

The only objection I have to changing the Constitution to change the 14th Amendment provisions to something along the lines to of 'born to citizens or legal residents of the United States is that would make government more intrusive- because in order to prove citizenship every single one of us applying for an initial passport would not only need to provide prove of place of birth, but also provide proof of the citizenship and residency of your parents at the time you were born.

 

[Flopper]

In today's polarized environment passing a new constitutional amendment to the change the 14th amendment would be virtually impossible. The possibility that the Supreme Court would interpret the citizenship clause to mean that children born of illegal parent(s) are not under the jurisdiction of the United States and thus not citizens seems remote. However, suppose the court did make such a ruling. The birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship because the birth certificate does no include citizenship information. Since birth certificates don't include citizenship information, how would a person prove their citizenship?

 

[protectionist]

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.

Well putting aside your bizarre fantasy that the next President will act differently on immigration than the last 40 Presidents, nothing can be more un-American than an American hoping than American citizens will be illegally shipped out of the country by the government of the United States

Well putting aside your bizarre fantasy that the next President will act differently on immigration than Eisenhower did with Operation Wetback in 1954, nothing can be more un-American than allowing the INVASION of millions of foreign cheap labor "troops", pillaging our economy so bad that the $$ Mexico gets from us, is their # 1 source of income. And allowing this invasion and plunder, after 407,000 American troops sacrificed their lives in World War II to stop just such an invasion, is beyond un-American. It is despicable.

 

[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.

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.

Persons born in the United States have been considered citizens since at the least Wong Kim Ark- regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Those citizens have been given passports, have voted, have been drafted, and are treated exactly like any other American citizen.

Wong Kim Ark confirmed what has been the truth in the United States since its founding- that anyone born in the United States is an American citizen- the 14th Amendment really just overturned the Dred Scott decision.

If a President attempted to deport American citizens, he would of course be challenged- not by anyone on the right- because the issue of illegal aliens is an important issue to inflame their base- but by persons who cared about the Constitutional rights of Americans.

They can challenge until they're blue in the face. There has never been any such thing as birthright citizenship, and the next president and SCOTUS will set it straight.

 

[protectionist]

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.'

Citizens can't be. But anchor babies are NOT citizens, They are illegal aliens , same as their parents.

The birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was never intended by its author (Jacob Howard), to give citizenship to foreigners, just because the parents came here before they were born (to acquire a lifetime of benefits at US taxpayer expense, from the birth of that child on the US side of the border).
Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> "[The 14th amendment] 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."

Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[protectionist]

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, the 14the amendment doesn't need to be changed. It has ALWAYS been that ALL foreigners are not US citizens, including their kids. Even it this wasn't true, legislation is enough to remedy things, not a change to an amendment. It says that right in the Constitution itself. Try reading it.

 

[protectionist]

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?

The 14th amendment] 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." (Jacob Howard, May 1866)

 

[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.

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

It doesn't matter what they interpreted. What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.

 

[Jackinthebox]

It doesn't matter what they interpreted. What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.

Because Reagan and the Bush clan did SOOOO much to stamp out illegals.

 

[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

It doesn't matter what they interpreted. What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.

They will interpret the law the same way it has been interpreted for the last 50 years- no matter how much you fantasize about deporting American citizens.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

The 14th amendment] 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." (Jacob Howard, May 1866)

So you can't demonstrate how someone other than a diplomat is not subject to jurisdiction of the United States either.

So are you just admitting that you hate the language of the 14th Amendment- or just that you want everyone to ignore it?

 

[Syriusly]

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, the 14the amendment doesn't need to be changed. It has ALWAYS been that ALL foreigners are not US citizens, including their kids. Even it this wasn't true, legislation is enough to remedy things, not a change to an amendment. It says that right in the Constitution itself. Try reading it.

The 14th Amendment doesn't need to change. But if you don't want the children of illegal aliens who are born in the United States then your only path is to change the 14th 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

Legislation can't change the Constitution.

All you have to do to prove me wrong is to demonstrate how the children of illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

IF you are unable to do that- then you are either lying or in denial.

 

[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.

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.

Persons born in the United States have been considered citizens since at the least Wong Kim Ark- regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Those citizens have been given passports, have voted, have been drafted, and are treated exactly like any other American citizen.

Wong Kim Ark confirmed what has been the truth in the United States since its founding- that anyone born in the United States is an American citizen- the 14th Amendment really just overturned the Dred Scott decision.

If a President attempted to deport American citizens, he would of course be challenged- not by anyone on the right- because the issue of illegal aliens is an important issue to inflame their base- but by persons who cared about the Constitutional rights of Americans.

They can challenge until they're blue in the face. There has never been any such thing as birthright citizenship, and the next president and SCOTUS will set it straight.

Most Americans are citizens because of 'birthright' citizenship. I am one- you might even be one assuming you are a citizen.

Anyway- you keep those fantasies going.