Former U.S. Attorney: The 14th Amendment Does Not Mandate Birthright Citizenship for Foreigners

[The Purge]

Former U.S. Attorney: The 14th Amendment Does Not Mandate Birthright Citizenship for Foreigners

It was about removing vestiges of slavery, not regulating aliens.

Shortly after the Constitution went into effect, the first Congress enacted a naturalization law. Lawmakers superseded this statute just five years later. Both provisions derived from the Constitution’s grant to the legislature (in Article I, Section 8) of the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” That grant, along with these naturalization statutes of 1790 and 1795, edifies us about the Framers’ conception of citizenship, and of the status of aliens and their children

Read much more at above link!

Since there isn't any word about enforcing this law, if it is a law at all. And since the obomanation did this...

AN E.O. was all he needed to make immigration law!

 

[Ropey]

Former U.S. Attorney: The 14th Amendment Does Not Mandate Birthright Citizenship for Foreigners

+2
It applies to released slaves and their progeny. There are no released slaves alive and so the amendment is as dead as the usefulness of any slavery amendments... or Affirmative Action legislation as well.

And like Kennedy overturned Affirmative Action...Kavenaugh will deal with this as well as the other two that need pruning.

#ConventionofStates

 

[Ropey]

Former U.S. Attorney: The 14th Amendment Does Not Mandate Birthright Citizenship for Foreigners

It was about removing vestiges of slavery, not regulating aliens.

Shortly after the Constitution went into effect, the first Congress enacted a naturalization law. Lawmakers superseded this statute just five years later. Both provisions derived from the Constitution’s grant to the legislature (in Article I, Section 8) of the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” That grant, along with these naturalization statutes of 1790 and 1795, edifies us about the Framers’ conception of citizenship, and of the status of aliens and their children

Read much more at above link!

Since there isn't any word about enforcing this law, if it is a law at all. And since the obomanation did this...

AN E.O. was all he needed to make immigration law!

+2

Apples & Oranges.

The left see no difference between the two, in this case.

They're going to hate what's coming.

 

[BULLDOG]

You do realize that any discussion about an amendment is not the same as the actual amendment, don't you? The specific wording is what was ratified, not what anyone thought about it.

 

[The Purge]

You do realize that any discussion about an amendment is not the same as the actual amendment, don't you? The specific wording is what was ratified, not what anyone thought about it.

5 CONSERVATIVE JUDGES on SCOTUS interpret it correctly, new meaning to the 14th!

 

[BULLDOG]

You do realize that any discussion about an amendment is not the same as the actual amendment, don't you? The specific wording is what was ratified, not what anyone thought about it.

5 CONSERVATIVE JUDGES on SCOTUS interpret it correctly, new meaning to the 14th!

Can you give specifics on that ruling? Date etc?

 

[WheelieAddict]

Get back to us when a practicing attorney weighs in.

 

[The Purge]

You do realize that any discussion about an amendment is not the same as the actual amendment, don't you? The specific wording is what was ratified, not what anyone thought about it.

5 CONSERVATIVE JUDGES on SCOTUS interpret it correctly, new meaning to the 14th!

Can you give specifics on that ruling? Date etc?

Perhaps you didn't get the jist... when this is finally brought to SCOTUS, and it will, 5 constitutional conservatives will follow what the founders wanted....there were no such things as illegal aliens, and anchor babies at the time!

 

[Crepitus]

Former U.S. Attorney: The 14th Amendment Does Not Mandate Birthright Citizenship for Foreigners

It was about removing vestiges of slavery, not regulating aliens.

Shortly after the Constitution went into effect, the first Congress enacted a naturalization law. Lawmakers superseded this statute just five years later. Both provisions derived from the Constitution’s grant to the legislature (in Article I, Section 8) of the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” That grant, along with these naturalization statutes of 1790 and 1795, edifies us about the Framers’ conception of citizenship, and of the status of aliens and their children

Read much more at above link!

Since there isn't any word about enforcing this law, if it is a law at all. And since the obomanation did this...

AN E.O. was all he needed to make immigration law!

Yeah yeah, and I can find someone to say the moon is made of green cheese or that global warming is fake too, but it doesn't make those things real.

 

[justinacolmena]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens ..."

There is no getting around the basic knowledge of civics and respect for the Constitution in general as requirements for citizenship.

For those born in the US, there is compulsory education which includes civics.

The process of naturalization also requires knowledge of civics.

http://civicsquiz.com/100-question-u-s-civics-quiz/

There are apparently a lot of people who are claiming citizenship in the US without the civics or any real idea of what citizenship actually entails.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Former U.S. Attorney: The 14th Amendment Does Not Mandate Birthright Citizenship for Foreigners

It was about removing vestiges of slavery, not regulating aliens.

Shortly after the Constitution went into effect, the first Congress enacted a naturalization law. Lawmakers superseded this statute just five years later. Both provisions derived from the Constitution’s grant to the legislature (in Article I, Section 8) of the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” That grant, along with these naturalization statutes of 1790 and 1795, edifies us about the Framers’ conception of citizenship, and of the status of aliens and their children

Read much more at above link!

Since there isn't any word about enforcing this law, if it is a law at all. And since the obomanation did this...

AN E.O. was all he needed to make immigration law!

Good post. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 is specificaly of note.


Federalist #43 is also relevant reading.

Snip...

“May it not happen, in fine, that the minority of citizens may become a majority of persons, by the accession of alien residents… or of those whom the constitution of the state has not admitted to the right of suffrage?” - Madison.

Perhaps take a peek at Federalst #2 as well.

 

[BULLDOG]

You do realize that any discussion about an amendment is not the same as the actual amendment, don't you? The specific wording is what was ratified, not what anyone thought about it.

5 CONSERVATIVE JUDGES on SCOTUS interpret it correctly, new meaning to the 14th!

Can you give specifics on that ruling? Date etc?

Perhaps you didn't get the jist... when this is finally brought to SCOTUS, and it will, 5 constitutional conservatives will follow what the founders wanted....there were no such things as illegal aliens, and anchor babies at the time!

It all makes sense now. You're using Lavin's bald head as a crystal ball to reveal the future. That's just amazing. What other talents do you have?

 

[The Purge]

Former U.S. Attorney: The 14th Amendment Does Not Mandate Birthright Citizenship for Foreigners

It was about removing vestiges of slavery, not regulating aliens.

Shortly after the Constitution went into effect, the first Congress enacted a naturalization law. Lawmakers superseded this statute just five years later. Both provisions derived from the Constitution’s grant to the legislature (in Article I, Section 8) of the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” That grant, along with these naturalization statutes of 1790 and 1795, edifies us about the Framers’ conception of citizenship, and of the status of aliens and their children

Read much more at above link!

Since there isn't any word about enforcing this law, if it is a law at all. And since the obomanation did this...

AN E.O. was all he needed to make immigration law!

Yeah yeah, and I can find someone to say the moon is made of green cheese or that global warming is fake too, but it doesn't make those things real.

As of 2018 there has been no Supreme Court decision that explicitly holds that persons born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are automatically afforded U.S. citizenship. Edward Erler, writing for the Claremont Institute, said that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. He goes on to argue that if governmental permission for parental entry is a necessary requirement for bestowal of birthright citizenship, then children of illegal aliens must surely be excluded.

 

[BULLDOG]

Former U.S. Attorney: The 14th Amendment Does Not Mandate Birthright Citizenship for Foreigners

It was about removing vestiges of slavery, not regulating aliens.

Shortly after the Constitution went into effect, the first Congress enacted a naturalization law. Lawmakers superseded this statute just five years later. Both provisions derived from the Constitution’s grant to the legislature (in Article I, Section 8) of the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” That grant, along with these naturalization statutes of 1790 and 1795, edifies us about the Framers’ conception of citizenship, and of the status of aliens and their children

Read much more at above link!

Since there isn't any word about enforcing this law, if it is a law at all. And since the obomanation did this...

AN E.O. was all he needed to make immigration law!

Yeah yeah, and I can find someone to say the moon is made of green cheese or that global warming is fake too, but it doesn't make those things real.

As of 2018 there has been no Supreme Court decision that explicitly holds that persons born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are automatically afforded U.S. citizenship. Edward Erler, writing for the Claremont Institute, said that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. He goes on to argue that if governmental permission for parental entry is a necessary requirement for bestowal of birthright citizenship, then children of illegal aliens must surely be excluded.

Who is Edward Erler, and why does his opinion matter?

 

[Crepitus]

Former U.S. Attorney: The 14th Amendment Does Not Mandate Birthright Citizenship for Foreigners

It was about removing vestiges of slavery, not regulating aliens.

Shortly after the Constitution went into effect, the first Congress enacted a naturalization law. Lawmakers superseded this statute just five years later. Both provisions derived from the Constitution’s grant to the legislature (in Article I, Section 8) of the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” That grant, along with these naturalization statutes of 1790 and 1795, edifies us about the Framers’ conception of citizenship, and of the status of aliens and their children

Read much more at above link!

Since there isn't any word about enforcing this law, if it is a law at all. And since the obomanation did this...

AN E.O. was all he needed to make immigration law!

Yeah yeah, and I can find someone to say the moon is made of green cheese or that global warming is fake too, but it doesn't make those things real.

As of 2018 there has been no Supreme Court decision that explicitly holds that persons born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are automatically afforded U.S. citizenship. Edward Erler, writing for the Claremont Institute, said that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. He goes on to argue that if governmental permission for parental entry is a necessary requirement for bestowal of birthright citizenship, then children of illegal aliens must surely be excluded.

Who is Edward Erler, and why does his opinion matter?

Just some nobody they dug up to agree with them since no one else does.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I say again let the Supreme Court settle this. The intent of the author of the Fourteenth Amendment is crystal clear.
It was intended as a remedy for slaves born here. Not for illegals as a quick path to residency.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If the 14th amendment was intended to confer citizenship on all children born here there would have been an Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Former U.S. Attorney: The 14th Amendment Does Not Mandate Birthright Citizenship for Foreigners

It was about removing vestiges of slavery, not regulating aliens.

Shortly after the Constitution went into effect, the first Congress enacted a naturalization law. Lawmakers superseded this statute just five years later. Both provisions derived from the Constitution’s grant to the legislature (in Article I, Section 8) of the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” That grant, along with these naturalization statutes of 1790 and 1795, edifies us about the Framers’ conception of citizenship, and of the status of aliens and their children

Read much more at above link!

Since there isn't any word about enforcing this law, if it is a law at all. And since the obomanation did this...

AN E.O. was all he needed to make immigration law!

Yeah yeah, and I can find someone to say the moon is made of green cheese or that global warming is fake too, but it doesn't make those things real.

As of 2018 there has been no Supreme Court decision that explicitly holds that persons born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are automatically afforded U.S. citizenship. Edward Erler, writing for the Claremont Institute, said that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. He goes on to argue that if governmental permission for parental entry is a necessary requirement for bestowal of birthright citizenship, then children of illegal aliens must surely be excluded.

Or for the children of tourists. The children of visitors with no intent to remain are likewise citizens.