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.
Correct.
Seeking to 'change' the 14th Amendment is ridiculous and unwarranted; predicated on the post hoc fallacy that the Amendment's Citizenship Clause acts as an 'incentive' to undocumented immigration, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
And unfortunately there are those who seek to 'change' the 14th Amendment motivated solely by bigotry and racism toward Hispanics, and the unfounded fear that Hispanic immigration will 'change' America. It is the fear of change and the hatred of diversity common to most reactionaries.
The fact that you use the PC word "undocumented" tells me a lot about you.
The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.
Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids. Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.
"anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.
It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself. It's an ample term for the situation. Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil. No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did. You're just spinning the truth now.
The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States" The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause. The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government. So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read, " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins All persons born or naturalized.. which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..
Have you noticed the disconnect here?
These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.
But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.
And that is because it applies exactly the same.
IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.
And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.
It is NOT the same! Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about. You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not. You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction. It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing. You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.
What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat. What it actually states is the only thing relevant. "And", etc. is a qualifier. If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally? Apples and oranges do not make your case. As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars? Are you up for it? Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens. So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means. Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death. I certainly don't.
Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.
'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.
Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.
The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.
If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.
The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States" The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause. The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government. So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read, " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."Have you noticed the disconnect here?
These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.
But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.
And that is because it applies exactly the same.
IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.
And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.
It is NOT the same! Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about. You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not. You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction. It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing. You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.
What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat. What it actually states is the only thing relevant. "And", etc. is a qualifier. If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally? Apples and oranges do not make your case. As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars? Are you up for it? Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens. So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means. Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death. I certainly don't.
Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.
'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.
Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.
The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.
If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.
NO, the Supreme Court has not! There has never been a case brought before them about children of illegal aliens. Yes I am for changing, re-interpreting or amending the Constitution on birthright citizenship for the reasons I have stated. Will you join this movement? Didn't think so as your agenda trumps common sense. No need for any further discussion on this then, is there?
The fact that you use the PC word "undocumented" tells me a lot about you.
The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.
Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids. Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.
"anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.
It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself. It's an ample term for the situation. Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil. No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did. You're just spinning the truth now.
Actually I have seen anti-immigrants on your side call 'anchor babies' 'turds spit out by illegal immigrants'- and yes I have seen anti-immigrants on your side say that the children are illegals also.
Because actually- according to your misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment- if children of illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens- then they are illegal aliens and committed a crime by being born here.
The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States" The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause. The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government. So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read, " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins All persons born or naturalized.. which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..
Have you noticed the disconnect here?
These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.
But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.
And that is because it applies exactly the same.
IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.
And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.
It is NOT the same! Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about. You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not. You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction. It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing. You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.
What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat. What it actually states is the only thing relevant. "And", etc. is a qualifier. If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally? Apples and oranges do not make your case. As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars? Are you up for it? Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens. So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means. Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death. I certainly don't.
Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.
'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.
Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.
The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.
If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.
The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.
Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids. Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.
"anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.
It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself. It's an ample term for the situation. Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil. No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did. You're just spinning the truth now.
Actually I have seen anti-immigrants on your side call 'anchor babies' 'turds spit out by illegal immigrants'- and yes I have seen anti-immigrants on your side say that the children are illegals also.
Because actually- according to your misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment- if children of illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens- then they are illegal aliens and committed a crime by being born here.
Don't give a crap about anti-"immigrants". I am not one of them. No, children of illegal aliens are citizens of their parent's country. They didn't break our immigration laws their parents did but that doesn't entitle them to our citizenship. Keep grasping at straws it's fun to watch. Are you ready to join our rmovement? If not, why do you continue with this as we aren't going to agree on the intent of the 14th.
The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States" The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause. The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government. So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read, " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."Have you noticed the disconnect here?
These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.
But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.
And that is because it applies exactly the same.
IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.
And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.
It is NOT the same! Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about. You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not. You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction. It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing. You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.
What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat. What it actually states is the only thing relevant. "And", etc. is a qualifier. If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally? Apples and oranges do not make your case. As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars? Are you up for it? Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens. So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means. Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death. I certainly don't.
Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.
'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.
Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.
The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.
If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.
No, the Supreme Court has made no such ruling. .
The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States" The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause. The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government. So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read, " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."It is NOT the same! Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about. You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not. You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction. It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing. You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.
What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat. What it actually states is the only thing relevant. "And", etc. is a qualifier. If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally? Apples and oranges do not make your case. As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars? Are you up for it? Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens. So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means. Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death. I certainly don't.
Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.
'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.
Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.
The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.
If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.
No, the Supreme Court has made no such ruling. .
I can keep reposting the specific quote from the Supreme Court as many times as needed.
Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.
Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.
While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or
b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?
The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States" The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause. The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government. So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read, " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat. What it actually states is the only thing relevant. "And", etc. is a qualifier. If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally? Apples and oranges do not make your case. As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars? Are you up for it? Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens. So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means. Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death. I certainly don't.
Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.
'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.
Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.
The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.
If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.
No, the Supreme Court has made no such ruling. .
I can keep reposting the specific quote from the Supreme Court as many times as needed.
Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.
Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.
While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or
b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?
I note you didn't include a link to this so-called clarification of the 14th by the Supreme Court. Doesn't matter anyway, as I said we are not going to agree so why not move forward and push for legislation to put a stop to this nonsense? Apparently, you don't want that but instead want to continue to beat a dead horse to death. Why is that?
The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States" The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause. The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government. So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read, " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat. What it actually states is the only thing relevant. "And", etc. is a qualifier. If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally? Apples and oranges do not make your case. As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars? Are you up for it? Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens. So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means. Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death. I certainly don't.
Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.
'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.
Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.
The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.
If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.
No, the Supreme Court has made no such ruling. .
I can keep reposting the specific quote from the Supreme Court as many times as needed.
Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.
Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.
While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or
b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?
I note you didn't include a link to this so-called clarification of the 14th by the Supreme Court. Doesn't matter anyway, as I said we are not going to agree so why not move forward and push for legislation to put a stop to this nonsense? Apparently, you don't want that but instead want to continue to beat a dead horse to death. Why is that?
What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat. What it actually states is the only thing relevant. "And", etc. is a qualifier. If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally? Apples and oranges do not make your case. As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars? Are you up for it? Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens. So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means. Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death. I certainly don't.
Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.
'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.
Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.
The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.
If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.
No, the Supreme Court has made no such ruling. .
I can keep reposting the specific quote from the Supreme Court as many times as needed.
Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.
Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.
While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or
b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?
I note you didn't include a link to this so-called clarification of the 14th by the Supreme Court. Doesn't matter anyway, as I said we are not going to agree so why not move forward and push for legislation to put a stop to this nonsense? Apparently, you don't want that but instead want to continue to beat a dead horse to death. Why is that?
This will be my last reply to you unless you start addressing what should be done moving forward on this issue. So don't waste your time posting the same old stuff over and over to me.
What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration? There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have. If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration. That evidence just doesn't exist.How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.Well Duh!
And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.
Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill. First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US. Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration. Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.
Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws. Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one. Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless. Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway. That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.
For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc. In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.
The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
Mark
Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?
Most married illegal immigrants are married to legal residence.What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration? There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have. If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration. That evidence just doesn't exist.How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.Well Duh!That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause, "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." grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.
Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical. If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.
And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.
Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill. First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US. Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration. Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.
Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws. Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one. Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless. Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway. That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.
For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc. In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.
The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
Mark
If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign. Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple and it will impact millions of parents and children.What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration? There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have. If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration. That evidence just doesn't exist.How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.
Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill. First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US. Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration. Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.
Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws. Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one. Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless. Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway. That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.
For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc. In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.
The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
Mark
Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?
Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.
Mark
If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign. Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple.What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration? There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have. If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration. That evidence just doesn't exist.Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws. Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one. Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless. Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway. That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.
For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc. In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.
The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
Mark
Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?
Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.
Mark
Most married illegal immigrants are married to legal residence.What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration? There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have. If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration. That evidence just doesn't exist.How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.Well Duh!
And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.
Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill. First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US. Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration. Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.
Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws. Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one. Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless. Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway. That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.
For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc. In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.
The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
Mark
Most married illegal immigrants are married to legal residence.What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration? There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have. If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration. That evidence just doesn't exist.How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.Well Duh!
And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.
Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill. First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US. Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration. Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.
Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws. Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one. Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless. Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway. That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.
For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc. In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.
The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
Mark
Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.
'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.
Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.
The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.
If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.
No, the Supreme Court has made no such ruling. .
I can keep reposting the specific quote from the Supreme Court as many times as needed.
Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.
Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.
While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or
b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?
I note you didn't include a link to this so-called clarification of the 14th by the Supreme Court. Doesn't matter anyway, as I said we are not going to agree so why not move forward and push for legislation to put a stop to this nonsense? Apparently, you don't want that but instead want to continue to beat a dead horse to death. Why is that?
This will be my last reply to you unless you start addressing what should be done moving forward on this issue. So don't waste your time posting the same old stuff over and over to me.
then stop replying to me. You stopped making substantive replies ever since I pointed out to you that the Supreme Court has ruled on 'jurisdiction' and illegal aliens.
Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.
Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.
While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or
b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?
If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign. Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple and it will impact millions of parents and children.What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration? There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have. If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration. That evidence just doesn't exist.Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws. Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one. Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless. Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway. That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.
For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc. In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.
The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
Mark
Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?
Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.
Mark
If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign. Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple and it will impact millions of parents and children.What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration? There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have. If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration. That evidence just doesn't exist.
The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
Mark
Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?
Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.
Mark
What if it impacts American citizens for the better?
Mark
