"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Syriusly]

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.

I didn't realize that the American troops in World War 2 fought to protect us from Mexicans.

The things I learn from posters here.

 

[Oldglory1]

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.

I didn't realize that the American troops in World War 2 fought to protect us from Mexicans.

The things I learn from posters here.

Are you really this dense? It was analogy about protecting our country from invasion in the past, present and future. You do know what an analogy is don't you?

 

[Oldglory1]

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.

Administrations for decades have been responsible for not stopping illegal immigration. Both parties are guilty. Now it is time to correct that situation. by enforcing our immigration laws on the books and removing all of the incentives for illegal aliens to come here. One of the biggest draws is birthright citizenship for their kids.

 

[Unkotare]

All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I didn't realize that the American troops in World War 2 fought to protect us from Mexicans.

The things I learn from posters here.

Are you really this dense? It was analogy about protecting our country from invasion in the past, present and future. You do know what an analogy is don't you?

That was an analogy?

piss poor one there- I don't know of any troops that fought in World War 2 with the motto "Today Germany, tomorrow Illegal Immigrants!"

If we were truly being invaded, then that 'invasion' started over 150 years ago when we Americans moved into land that Mexicans had already stolen from American Indians. Ever since that time, we have had a porous border, with Mexicans coming to the United States for work.

Now I am not in favor of illegal immigration and for the life of me, I do not understand why Bush didn't secure our Southern border after 9/11- there was never a time more ripe to beef up the border patrol and lock down that border.

But that doesn't mean we are being invaded- the number of illegals in the United States went down during the recession- because, unlike the fiction put out by many of those opposed to illegal immigration- most come here to work, and if there is no work they go home, or don't come.

And none of that has anything to do with the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Administrations for decades have been responsible for not stopping illegal immigration. Both parties are guilty. Now it is time to correct that situation. by enforcing our immigration laws on the books and removing all of the incentives for illegal aliens to come here. One of the biggest draws is birthright citizenship for their kids.

All you need to do to stop that one is change the 14th Amendment.

 

[Oldglory1]

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.

I didn't realize that the American troops in World War 2 fought to protect us from Mexicans.

The things I learn from posters here.

Are you really this dense? It was analogy about protecting our country from invasion in the past, present and future. You do know what an analogy is don't you?

That was an analogy?

piss poor one there- I don't know of any troops that fought in World War 2 with the motto "Today Germany, tomorrow Illegal Immigrants!"

If we were truly being invaded, then that 'invasion' started over 150 years ago when we Americans moved into land that Mexicans had already stolen from American Indians. Ever since that time, we have had a porous border, with Mexicans coming to the United States for work.

Now I am not in favor of illegal immigration and for the life of me, I do not understand why Bush didn't secure our Southern border after 9/11- there was never a time more ripe to beef up the border patrol and lock down that border.

But that doesn't mean we are being invaded- the number of illegals in the United States went down during the recession- because, unlike the fiction put out by many of those opposed to illegal immigration- most come here to work, and if there is no work they go home, or don't come.

And none of that has anything to do with the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

.
Ah, now the truth comes out about you. You're a Reconquista advocate. Any land that Mexico owned long ago was bought, fought and paid for. That doesn't give Mexicans the right today to invade our country illegally. And yes, it is an invasion as it is an unwanted intrusion. Yes, the language of the 14th is quite clear. Children of illegal aliens were never meant to be given birthright citizen in our country. When will you admit that? Again, on a personal note aside from what is written in the 14th why do you desire them to have our citizenship, Mr. Reconquista? Why aren't you joining the move to change birthright citizenship? The Constitution has been amended/modified many times to fit new circumstances. An illegal invasion of our country by the millons with them dropping their kids on our soil is costing us dearly. Do you give a damn about that? Apparently not. So just what is your agenda on a personal note?

 

[JoeMoma]

All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...

Well, quit your whining and do something.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Don't agree with the loop hole "anchor babies". If your parents are here illegally and you are born here, then IMO you are also here illegally. Throw them all out of the country and do away with the loop hole.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I didn't realize that the American troops in World War 2 fought to protect us from Mexicans.

The things I learn from posters here.

Are you really this dense? It was analogy about protecting our country from invasion in the past, present and future. You do know what an analogy is don't you?

That was an analogy?

piss poor one there- I don't know of any troops that fought in World War 2 with the motto "Today Germany, tomorrow Illegal Immigrants!"

If we were truly being invaded, then that 'invasion' started over 150 years ago when we Americans moved into land that Mexicans had already stolen from American Indians. Ever since that time, we have had a porous border, with Mexicans coming to the United States for work.

Now I am not in favor of illegal immigration and for the life of me, I do not understand why Bush didn't secure our Southern border after 9/11- there was never a time more ripe to beef up the border patrol and lock down that border.

But that doesn't mean we are being invaded- the number of illegals in the United States went down during the recession- because, unlike the fiction put out by many of those opposed to illegal immigration- most come here to work, and if there is no work they go home, or don't come.

And none of that has anything to do with the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

.
Ah, now the truth comes out about you. You're a Reconquista advocate. Any land that Mexico owned long ago was bought, fought and paid for. That doesn't give Mexicans the right today to invade our country illegally. And yes, it is an invasion as it is an unwanted intrusion.

Once again- you don't have a clue about what I said.

I was pointing out what the history of 'invasion' was- we 'invaded' Mexican lands first- by moving there. It wasn't illegal then, just like it wasn't illegal for most of our history for Mexicans to come to the United States.

They are not 'invading' the United States- no more than the Irishman who comes here on a tourist visa and just stays here and works is 'invading'

I am against illegal immigration. I just don't believe the hype of the right wing and left wing talking points.

 

[Syriusly]

Don't agree with the loop hole "anchor babies". If your parents are here illegally and you are born here, then IMO you are also here illegally. Throw them all out of the country and do away with the loop hole.

Do you know what the 'loop hole' is?

 

[Oldglory1]

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.

I didn't realize that the American troops in World War 2 fought to protect us from Mexicans.

The things I learn from posters here.

Are you really this dense? It was analogy about protecting our country from invasion in the past, present and future. You do know what an analogy is don't you?

That was an analogy?

piss poor one there- I don't know of any troops that fought in World War 2 with the motto "Today Germany, tomorrow Illegal Immigrants!"

If we were truly being invaded, then that 'invasion' started over 150 years ago when we Americans moved into land that Mexicans had already stolen from American Indians. Ever since that time, we have had a porous border, with Mexicans coming to the United States for work.

Now I am not in favor of illegal immigration and for the life of me, I do not understand why Bush didn't secure our Southern border after 9/11- there was never a time more ripe to beef up the border patrol and lock down that border.

But that doesn't mean we are being invaded- the number of illegals in the United States went down during the recession- because, unlike the fiction put out by many of those opposed to illegal immigration- most come here to work, and if there is no work they go home, or don't come.

And none of that has anything to do with the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

.
Ah, now the truth comes out about you. You're a Reconquista advocate. Any land that Mexico owned long ago was bought, fought and paid for. That doesn't give Mexicans the right today to invade our country illegally. And yes, it is an invasion as it is an unwanted intrusion.

Once again- you don't have a clue about what I said.

I was pointing out what the history of 'invasion' was- we 'invaded' Mexican lands first- by moving there. It wasn't illegal then, just like it wasn't illegal for most of our history for Mexicans to come to the United States.

They are not 'invading' the United States- no more than the Irishman who comes here on a tourist visa and just stays here and works is 'invading'

I am against illegal immigration. I just don't believe the hype of the right wing and left wing talking points.

So you're comparing a time when migrating here wasn't illegal to today when doing so without authorization from our government is? Are you serious? Overstaying one's visa is being here illegally also. But at least on a tourist visa they didn't come here illegally in the first place so no the initial act wasn't invading albeit they became illegal by overstaying.

You're the one who is clueless here, Mr. Reconquista.

 

[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?

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)

You can quote Howard as much as you want, but the fact is Howard's statement is not in the amendment but rather Congress approved a more inclusive statement,
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. (14th amendment of the US Constitution July 9, 1868).

Your argument is based on your belief that congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment assumed that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign parents. How could they possibly have made such an assumption? There were many foreigners in this country who came to the US raised families and never applied for citizenship. If Congress had meant to exclude their children, they would have done so by including Howard's statement but they didn't.

Prior to the 14th amendment, foreigners moved to the US, settled, and raised families; after 14 years, they could appear in any court and declare their residence and thus become citizens provided they had given notice of their intent 5 years prior. However, many never did, particular in rural areas and territories. With the freeing of the slaves, America was becoming a nation filed with people who considered themselves Americans but were without citizenship. The 14th amendment solved the problem in a simple but elegant way.

To argue that children of foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not only ridiculous but was settled in the Wong case.

 

[Oldglory1]

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)

You can quote Howard as much as you want, but the fact is Howard's statement is not in the amendment but rather Congress approved a more inclusive statement,
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. (14th amendment of the US Constitution July 9, 1868).

Your argument is based on your belief that congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment assumed that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign parents. How could they possibly have made such an assumption? There were many foreigners in this country who came to the US raised families and never applied for citizenship. If Congress had meant to exclude their children, they would have done so by including Howard's statement but they didn't.

Prior to the 14th amendment, foreigners moved to the US, settled, and raised families; after 14 years, they could appear in any court and declare their residence and thus become citizens provided they had given notice of their intent 5 years prior. However, many never did, particular in rural areas and territories. With the freeing of the slaves, America was becoming a nation filed with people who considered themselves Americans but were without citizenship. The 14th amendment solved the problem in a simple but elegant way.

To argue that children of foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not only ridiculous but was settled in the Wong case.

Children of "foreigners"? Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens. The foreigners in question are parents here illegally. What part of that aren't you getting?

Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.

 

[Flopper]

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)

You can quote Howard as much as you want, but the fact is Howard's statement is not in the amendment but rather Congress approved a more inclusive statement,
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. (14th amendment of the US Constitution July 9, 1868).

Your argument is based on your belief that congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment assumed that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign parents. How could they possibly have made such an assumption? There were many foreigners in this country who came to the US raised families and never applied for citizenship. If Congress had meant to exclude their children, they would have done so by including Howard's statement but they didn't.

Prior to the 14th amendment, foreigners moved to the US, settled, and raised families; after 14 years, they could appear in any court and declare their residence and thus become citizens provided they had given notice of their intent 5 years prior. However, many never did, particular in rural areas and territories. With the freeing of the slaves, America was becoming a nation filed with people who considered themselves Americans but were without citizenship. The 14th amendment solved the problem in a simple but elegant way.

To argue that children of foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not only ridiculous but was settled in the Wong case.

Children of "foreigners"? Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens. The foreigners in question are parents here illegally. What part of that aren't you getting?

Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.

When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants. You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.

In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States". Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal. To argue otherwise would be nonsense.

 

[Unkotare]

All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...

Well, quit your whining and do something.

Not my ax to grind. I think the problem is with border enforcement, not the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

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)

You can quote Howard as much as you want, but the fact is Howard's statement is not in the amendment but rather Congress approved a more inclusive statement,
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. (14th amendment of the US Constitution July 9, 1868).

Your argument is based on your belief that congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment assumed that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign parents. How could they possibly have made such an assumption? There were many foreigners in this country who came to the US raised families and never applied for citizenship. If Congress had meant to exclude their children, they would have done so by including Howard's statement but they didn't.

Prior to the 14th amendment, foreigners moved to the US, settled, and raised families; after 14 years, they could appear in any court and declare their residence and thus become citizens provided they had given notice of their intent 5 years prior. However, many never did, particular in rural areas and territories. With the freeing of the slaves, America was becoming a nation filed with people who considered themselves Americans but were without citizenship. The 14th amendment solved the problem in a simple but elegant way.

To argue that children of foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not only ridiculous but was settled in the Wong case.

Children of "foreigners"? Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens. The foreigners in question are parents here illegally. What part of that aren't you getting?

Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.

LOL....says who?

The 14th Amendment doesn't say a word about legal immigrants or illegal immigrants.

 

[Syriusly]

I didn't realize that the American troops in World War 2 fought to protect us from Mexicans.

The things I learn from posters here.

Are you really this dense? It was analogy about protecting our country from invasion in the past, present and future. You do know what an analogy is don't you?

That was an analogy?

piss poor one there- I don't know of any troops that fought in World War 2 with the motto "Today Germany, tomorrow Illegal Immigrants!"

If we were truly being invaded, then that 'invasion' started over 150 years ago when we Americans moved into land that Mexicans had already stolen from American Indians. Ever since that time, we have had a porous border, with Mexicans coming to the United States for work.

Now I am not in favor of illegal immigration and for the life of me, I do not understand why Bush didn't secure our Southern border after 9/11- there was never a time more ripe to beef up the border patrol and lock down that border.

But that doesn't mean we are being invaded- the number of illegals in the United States went down during the recession- because, unlike the fiction put out by many of those opposed to illegal immigration- most come here to work, and if there is no work they go home, or don't come.

And none of that has anything to do with the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

.
Ah, now the truth comes out about you. You're a Reconquista advocate. Any land that Mexico owned long ago was bought, fought and paid for. That doesn't give Mexicans the right today to invade our country illegally. And yes, it is an invasion as it is an unwanted intrusion.

Once again- you don't have a clue about what I said.

I was pointing out what the history of 'invasion' was- we 'invaded' Mexican lands first- by moving there. It wasn't illegal then, just like it wasn't illegal for most of our history for Mexicans to come to the United States.

They are not 'invading' the United States- no more than the Irishman who comes here on a tourist visa and just stays here and works is 'invading'

I am against illegal immigration. I just don't believe the hype of the right wing and left wing talking points.

So you're comparing a time when migrating here wasn't illegal to today when doing so without authorization from our government is? Are you serious? Overstaying one's visa is being here illegally also. But at least on a tourist visa they didn't come here illegally in the first place so no the initial act wasn't invading albeit they became illegal by overstaying.

You're the one who is clueless here, Mr. Reconquista.

Whatever Mr. Denial.

So once again- the language of the 14th Amendment is very, very clear- every child born in the United States is a U.S. citizen- except those not born within the jurisidiction of the United States.

Show me an example of any child born within the United States in the last 50 years, other than the child of a diplomat, who was not born within the jurisdiction of the United States.

You have yet to deal with that little issue of the actual language of the 14th Amendment.

And that is why nothing will change unless someone wants to change the Constitution.

 

[Flopper]

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Why do you keep insisting that it will stay the same? The SCOTUS has recently changed gun laws, political donation laws, and eminent domain laws that were "set" for years.

A Congress, a president, or a court is not held to the results of a past decision.

Mark