Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...
All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...
And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?
The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.
If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.
Mark
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.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)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?
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.
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.
All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...
And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?
The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.
If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.
Mark
According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them. If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story. What hypocrites they are! They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.
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.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)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?
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.
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.
How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship? God damn you're dense!
Past decisions are important to the court. In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions. In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.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.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.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.
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
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
Past decisions are important to the court. In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions. In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.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.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.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.
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
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
One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences. The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.
Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby. This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.
One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship. These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents. In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.
And there is no evidence that abolishing birthright citizenship; that is jus soli has reduced illegal immigration elsewhere. Even the assumption that abolishing it in the US will reduce illegal immigration has no creditable data to support it.Past decisions are important to the court. In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions. In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.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.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
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
One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences. The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.
Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby. This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.
One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship. These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents. In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.
A number of countries have changed away from birthright citizenship. If they can do it, I am quite sure the problem isn't insurrmuntable.
Besides, unless we go to it, we still have the same problem with illegals. Which I am sure we will have forever unless we finally fix the problem.
Mark
Past decisions are important to the court. In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions. In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.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.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.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.
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
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
One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences. The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.
Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby. This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.
One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship. These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents. In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.
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.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)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?
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.
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.
How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship? God damn you're dense!
All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...
And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?
The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.
If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.
Mark
According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them. If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story. What hypocrites they are! They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.
All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...
And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?
The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.
If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.
Mark
According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them. If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story. What hypocrites they are! They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.
LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?
Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:
Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
You again:
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 again:
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.
You again:
Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.
Must make you proud.
All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...
And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?
The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.
If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.
Mark
According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them. If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story. What hypocrites they are! They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.
LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?
Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:
Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
You again:
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 again:
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.
You again:
Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.
Must make you proud.
Who started out in here making accusations of whining in the first place? It wasn't me! I merely countered to defend myself and pointed out that discussing an issue isn't whining. Issues should be able to debated without that uncalled for labeling just to shut someone up you don't agree with. Yes, I am proud that I am willing to discuss things like an adult but will defend myself when attacked first.
There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen. 10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one. There are millions of parents who simply would bother. Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born. Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.Past decisions are important to the court. In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions. In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.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.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
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
One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences. The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.
Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby. This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.
One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship. These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents. In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.
I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.
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.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.
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.
How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship? God damn you're dense!
The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.
Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.
You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.
IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.
IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.
All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...
And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?
The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.
If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.
Mark
According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them. If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story. What hypocrites they are! They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.
LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?
Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:
Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
You again:
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 again:
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.
You again:
Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.
Must make you proud.
Who started out in here making accusations of whining in the first place? It wasn't me! I merely countered to defend myself and pointed out that discussing an issue isn't whining and it is hypocritical for your side to be able to express your views but that's not whining on your part? Issues should be able to debated without that uncalled for labeling just to shut someone up you don't agree with. Yes, I am proud that I am willing to discuss things like an adult but will defend myself when attacked first.
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.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)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?
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.
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.
How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship? God damn you're dense!
There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen. 10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one. There are millions of parents who simply would bother. Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born. Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.Past decisions are important to the court. In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions. In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.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
One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences. The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.
Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby. This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.
One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship. These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents. In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.
I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.
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.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.
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.
How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship? God damn you're dense!
The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.
Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.
You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.
IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.
IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.
All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...
And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?
The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.
If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.
Mark
According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them. If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story. What hypocrites they are! They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.
LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?
Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:
Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
You again:
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 again:
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.
You again:
Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.
Must make you proud.
Who started out in here making accusations of whining in the first place? It wasn't me! I merely countered to defend myself and pointed out that discussing an issue isn't whining and it is hypocritical for your side to be able to express your views but that's not whining on your part? Issues should be able to debated without that uncalled for labeling just to shut someone up you don't agree with. Yes, I am proud that I am willing to discuss things like an adult but will defend myself when attacked first.
So you are saying that if you feel attacked- you will act in exactly the manner you condemn in others?
Yes- I accused you of whining. And I will come back to that. You then accused 'liberals' of being hypocritical and 'trying to shut down the opposition".
And I provided 4 quotes of you specifically trying to shut down my contributions- because you don't like what I was saying. I kept repeating myself because you will not seriously address the most salient issue- every person born in the United States is a U.S. Citizen except those born not in the jurisdiction of the United States.
The language is very clear- the only question is what is 'jurisdiction'.
Can we agree on that point?
Do you agree that anyone born in the United States is a citizen- except those not born in the jurisdiction of the United States.
If you want a serious conversation- answer that question and we can proceed in a non-confrontational, fact and logic based discussion.
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.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.
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.
How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship? God damn you're dense!
Are you saying that those born in the United States who are born with citizenship of another country are therefore not American citizens when they are born?
And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?
The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.
If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.
Mark
According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them. If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story. What hypocrites they are! They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.
LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?
Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:
Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
You again:
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 again:
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.
You again:
Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.
Must make you proud.
Who started out in here making accusations of whining in the first place? It wasn't me! I merely countered to defend myself and pointed out that discussing an issue isn't whining and it is hypocritical for your side to be able to express your views but that's not whining on your part? Issues should be able to debated without that uncalled for labeling just to shut someone up you don't agree with. Yes, I am proud that I am willing to discuss things like an adult but will defend myself when attacked first.
So you are saying that if you feel attacked- you will act in exactly the manner you condemn in others?
Yes- I accused you of whining. And I will come back to that. You then accused 'liberals' of being hypocritical and 'trying to shut down the opposition".
And I provided 4 quotes of you specifically trying to shut down my contributions- because you don't like what I was saying. I kept repeating myself because you will not seriously address the most salient issue- every person born in the United States is a U.S. Citizen except those born not in the jurisdiction of the United States.
The language is very clear- the only question is what is 'jurisdiction'.
Can we agree on that point?
Do you agree that anyone born in the United States is a citizen- except those not born in the jurisdiction of the United States.
If you want a serious conversation- answer that question and we can proceed in a non-confrontational, fact and logic based discussion.
I said that I would defend myself.by calling you hypocrites out. It is hypocritical for you to call my discussing of the issue as whining but you expressing your opposing view isn't? One of you in here kept asking that same old question over and over even though it was answered (though not to your liking of course) therefore my "Polly wanna cracker" counter remarks. I have asked questions in here my self that were NEVER answered at all. Yet you demand yet again I answer a question that I have already answered over and over and so have others who share my views in here. I asked just what is the agenda of you pro-birthright citizenship for newborns of illegal aliens on a "personal" level aside from what either of us interpret from the meaning of the 14th and if you have ethnic ties to illegal aliens and all I got was silence. So don't talk to me about supposed unanswered questions. I also asked why you and yours in here wouldn't join the movement to have it reinterpreted since it does make a mockery out of it and it is costing us billions in tax dollars. Silence once again. Yes, hypocricy rules in here but not by me.
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.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.
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.
How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship? God damn you're dense!
Are you saying that those born in the United States who are born with citizenship of another country are therefore not American citizens when they are born?
They are if their parents are legal residents of this country. They hold allegience to this country then.
