Business Insider misleads its readers on birthright citizenship.

[surada]

Idiot Unko: mindlessly repeating the law doesn’t even begin to address the issues involved. As you’ve already been told.

;

You should go ahead and call Legal Match and ask them. You are completely wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Anchor baby is just slang for a child born in the US to a foreign national. They are really just US citizens.

ORIGIN OF ANCHOR BABY
1
First recorded in1995–2000; from the parents' intent to “anchor” themselves and not be deported

 

[surada]

ORIGIN OF ANCHOR BABY
1
First recorded in1995–2000; from the parents' intent to “anchor” themselves and not be deported

Doesn't change the status of the parents.

 

[BackAgain]

OK Skippy

Show me cases over the last 150 years where a claim to Birthright Citizenship has been overturned

Wrong question, you foul smelling gerbil.

But you know that.

You said the Constitution has been clear on your claim for over 150 years. You’re wrong. And the SCOTUS hasn’t resolved the question, either, you pinhead.

 

[BackAgain]

You should go ahead and call Legal Match and ask them. You are completely wrong.

You could cite a reputable source.

But you won’t.

 

[Unkotare]

"The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes so-called “birthright citizenship”. It provides that all people born in the territory of the U.S. are citizens.

The clause establishes that all people who are born in the United States automatically become U.S. citizens, regardless of the citizenship of the child’s parents."

.

 

[Unkotare]

The word "unicorn" exists. That doesn't mean it refers to anything real.

.

 

[Unkotare]

"Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco and was the son of two Chinese immigrants ...His parents were prohibited from seeking citizenship because of the Chinese Exclusion Act that prevented Chinese immigrants from going through naturalization.... The Supreme Court’s decision solidified the doctrine of jus soli by ruling that because Wong Kim Ark was born within the jurisdiction of the United States, he was a citizen, regardless of his parents’ citizenship status. "

An Exploration of Birthright Citizenship | Immigration and Human Rights Law Review

lawblogs.uc.edu

.

 

[Unkotare]

.

Once again johnweak brings his hapless failure of an argument to a discussion board when his real argument is with the Supreme Court. What do you want to bet he has never even tried to communicate his grievances to his elected representatives?

.

 

[Unkotare]

There is no such thing as an "anchor baby."

.

 

[BackAgain]

.

The word unkotare exists. That doesn’t mean it is properly used as a username.


;


,


:

 

[surada]

Wrong question, you foul smelling gerbil.

But you know that.

You said the Constitution has been clear on your claim for over 150 years. You’re wrong. And the SCOTUS hasn’t resolved the question, either, you pinhead.

You're a loser. Like Trump you are incapable of learning.

 

[BackAgain]

.

Cool case cite. And upon a mere cursory reading or the case, itself, people as ignorant as you and Leftwhiner automatically jump to conclusions.

But even the analysis you cited to offers a fair summary of the response to the claim that Wong Kim Ark answers the question:

On the other hand, opponents of birthright citizenship argue that while the decision made in Wong Kim Ark was correct, it should be restricted to only apply to people born in the United States to legally authorized immigrants, as was the case with Ark’s parents.[26] Opposition to birthright citizenship also argue that the text of the Fourteenth Amendment includes “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude children of non-legal immigrants based upon the belief that the children’s loyalty will lie with their parent’s home country rather than the United States.[27] Lastly, challengers contend that sustaining the birthright citizenship will incentivize illegal immigration to have American born children.[28]

An Exploration of Birthright Citizenship | Immigration and Human Rights Law Review

lawblogs.uc.edu

 

[BackAgain]

You're a loser. Like Trump you are incapable of learning.

You are ignorant, arrogant and stupid.

Like Potato, you’re brain dead.

But more fundamentally, you’re simply wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong question, you foul smelling gerbil.

But you know that.

You said the Constitution has been clear on your claim for over 150 years. You’re wrong. And the SCOTUS hasn’t resolved the question, either, you pinhead.

The issue has been settled for 150 years

If a bunch of racist Conservatives who hate Mexicans want it changed you can try to change the Constitution

I offered you a chance to show any court case showing Birthright Citizenship is un Constitutional and you failed Skippy

 

[BackAgain]

The issue has been settled for 150 years

If a bunch of racist Conservatives who hate Mexicans want it changed you can try to change the Constitution

I offered you a chance to show any court case showing Birthright Citizenship is un Constitutional and you failed Skippy

It hasn’t been settled at all. You were wrong. You are still wrong.

But, in the same spirit of giving that you displayed, I invite you to cite any case which actually settles this issue.

I’ll overlook your dishonesty and ignorance about racism.

 

[johnwk]

You can owe your allegiance to Spain or the UK or any country, but if you're in the United States, you're under US jurisdiction.

“What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” LINK 1st column halfway down.


John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section remarks on March 9th, 1866, during Congressional debates upon the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in the following manner:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)

 

[johnwk]

OK Skippy

Show me cases over the last 150 years where a claim to Birthright Citizenship has been overturned

Show us a United States Supreme Court case which specifically took up and answered the question, whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.

 

[rightwinger]

Show us a United States Supreme Court case which specifically took up and answered the question, whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.

I don’t need a Supreme Court decision affirming the 14th amendment
I have millions of US Citizens having birthright citizenship

 

[johnwk]

I don’t need a Supreme Court decision affirming the 14th amendment
I have millions of US Citizens having birthright citizenship

Millions who think they have birthright citizenship.