How many nations OFFER BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP?

[ConHog]

Simple.....

All you have to do is change the Constitution

You remember that one don't you? Do only the parts you like apply?

So you contend that there is not a gray area in the 14th as concerns illegals? And further, you contend that the process for changing the COTUS is not a legitimate political maneuver? I'm sure the blacks would argue with you, and in fact be thankful that Amendments are possible. Women to.

I think the 14th is quite clear on who is a citizen. It is more clear than the 2nd amendment.

I actually would support changing citizenship rules. But it has to be done the right way and can't apply retroactively

Then we are in agreement, at least partial. No one can retroactively take citizenship away from people, and only an idiot advocates such. yes I realize a few idiots on here have said exactly that.

 

[uscitizen]

Let's hear the brilliant answer to these questions then:

If the 14th Amendment is altered and people no longer become citizens by virtue of an American birth, then how the fuck do they become US citizens?

If a person is born here and denied US citizenship, and cannot qualify for citizenship in another nation, what then? Are they to be some sort of legalized gypsy?

The 14th doesn't need to be altered at THIS point. It merely needs to be clarified. IF SCOTUS rules that the children of illegal aliens are indeed covered, then we can have a debate. Why are you so scared of having that debate? How do they become citizens? The same way millions have became citizens.

How to become a U.S. citizen

Why would a person born here of parents who are here illegally not qualify for citizenship in their own country? and frankly, who cares? They're parents should consider that before leaving their own country to have a baby here. Eliminate the anchor baby clause and you eliminate their incentive for coming here to have babies and those babies would be born in their own country and thus be citizens.

By the way, if you want to make an argument that perhaps we should make it easier to become a US citizen, I'll agree with you, but that is not the issue at hand here.

So NOW the "Strict Constitutionalists" now want an "Activist Court."

LOL yeah. Well they want what they want and have no shame in rationalizing what they want.

 

[ConHog]

The 14th doesn't need to be altered at THIS point. It merely needs to be clarified. IF SCOTUS rules that the children of illegal aliens are indeed covered, then we can have a debate. Why are you so scared of having that debate? How do they become citizens? The same way millions have became citizens.

How to become a U.S. citizen

Why would a person born here of parents who are here illegally not qualify for citizenship in their own country? and frankly, who cares? They're parents should consider that before leaving their own country to have a baby here. Eliminate the anchor baby clause and you eliminate their incentive for coming here to have babies and those babies would be born in their own country and thus be citizens.

By the way, if you want to make an argument that perhaps we should make it easier to become a US citizen, I'll agree with you, but that is not the issue at hand here.

So NOW the "Strict Constitutionalists" now want an "Activist Court."

LOL yeah. Well they want what they want and have no shame in rationalizing what they want.

Actually, I have always maintained that there is a fine line between interpreting and being an activist judge, and that the term activism is often over used. Would this be judicial activism? I honestly don't know. I just think we should get a SCOTUS ruling before we talk about amending the COTUS.

 

[Flopper]

As a practical matter, changing this policy would be extremely difficult. That’s because it is in the Constitution – or, rather, it is based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment begins this way: “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.”

Passage of a new constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds “aye” vote in the House and Senate, plus the approval of the legislatures of three-quarters of the 50 states. In today’s polarized political environment, it is hard to envision that happening.

14th Amendment: why birthright citizenship change 'can't be done' - CSMonitor.com

 

[ConHog]

As a practical matter, changing this policy would be extremely difficult. That’s because it is in the Constitution – or, rather, it is based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment begins this way: “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.”

Passage of a new constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds “aye” vote in the House and Senate, plus the approval of the legislatures of three-quarters of the 50 states. In today’s polarized political environment, it is hard to envision that happening.

14th Amendment: why birthright citizenship change 'can't be done' - CSMonitor.com

But there is a valid argument of what under the jurisdiction of means. Does it mean anyone that sneaks in under the fence? I mean if someone sneaks in your back door, are they under your jurisdiction? I think not.

 

[edthecynic]

As a practical matter, changing this policy would be extremely difficult. That’s because it is in the Constitution – or, rather, it is based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment begins this way: “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.”

Passage of a new constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds “aye” vote in the House and Senate, plus the approval of the legislatures of three-quarters of the 50 states. In today’s polarized political environment, it is hard to envision that happening.

14th Amendment: why birthright citizenship change 'can't be done' - CSMonitor.com

But there is a valid argument of what under the jurisdiction of means. Does it mean anyone that sneaks in under the fence? I mean if someone sneaks in your back door, are they under your jurisdiction? I think not.

And now suddenly 'it all depends what the meaning of "is" is' is a valid argument.
Keep it up!

 

[Flopper]

The legal meaning of jurisdiction is: The legal power, right, or authority of a particular court to hear and determine causes, to try criminals, or to execute justice; judicial authority over a cause or class of causes; as, certain suits or actions, or the cognizance of certain crimes, are within the jurisdiction of a particular court, that is, within the limits of its authority or commission.

I fail see how a child born in the United States would not fall under it's jurisdiction. I doubt there would be a court in the land that would rule otherwise.

You can't do away with birthright citizenship by legal interpretation. It would require a constitutional amendment and that ain't gonna happen.

 

[ConHog]

The legal meaning of jurisdiction is: The legal power, right, or authority of a particular court to hear and determine causes, to try criminals, or to execute justice; judicial authority over a cause or class of causes; as, certain suits or actions, or the cognizance of certain crimes, are within the jurisdiction of a particular court, that is, within the limits of its authority or commission.

I fail see how a child born in the United States would not fall under it's jurisdiction. I doubt there would be a court in the land that would rule otherwise.

You can't do away with birthright citizenship by legal interpretation. It would require a constitutional amendment and that ain't gonna happen.

That is the correct definition of jurisdiction. However the amendment says under the jurisdiction AND certain groups have been ruled to NOT be automatic qualifiers despite being born within the boundaries of US territory IE Native Americans. So there is precedent. Coupled with Wong which explicit applies ONLY to legal aliens and you have a vague amendment as to where it pertains HERE.

 

[Flopper]

The legal meaning of jurisdiction is: The legal power, right, or authority of a particular court to hear and determine causes, to try criminals, or to execute justice; judicial authority over a cause or class of causes; as, certain suits or actions, or the cognizance of certain crimes, are within the jurisdiction of a particular court, that is, within the limits of its authority or commission.

I fail see how a child born in the United States would not fall under it's jurisdiction. I doubt there would be a court in the land that would rule otherwise.

You can't do away with birthright citizenship by legal interpretation. It would require a constitutional amendment and that ain't gonna happen.

That is the correct definition of jurisdiction. However the amendment says under the jurisdiction AND certain groups have been ruled to NOT be automatic qualifiers despite being born within the boundaries of US territory IE Native Americans. So there is precedent. Coupled with Wong which explicit applies ONLY to legal aliens and you have a vague amendment as to where it pertains HERE.

The court ruled that a Native American is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because his first allegiance was to his tribe. I can not conceive how this ruling could be a precedent for a baby born in the US. In 1898 the court ruled on the limits of citizenship by birthright. The court usually does not hear a case which would reverse a previous ruling of the court.

 

[rightwinger]

The legal meaning of jurisdiction is: The legal power, right, or authority of a particular court to hear and determine causes, to try criminals, or to execute justice; judicial authority over a cause or class of causes; as, certain suits or actions, or the cognizance of certain crimes, are within the jurisdiction of a particular court, that is, within the limits of its authority or commission.

I fail see how a child born in the United States would not fall under it's jurisdiction. I doubt there would be a court in the land that would rule otherwise.

You can't do away with birthright citizenship by legal interpretation. It would require a constitutional amendment and that ain't gonna happen.

That is the correct definition of jurisdiction. However the amendment says under the jurisdiction AND certain groups have been ruled to NOT be automatic qualifiers despite being born within the boundaries of US territory IE Native Americans. So there is precedent. Coupled with Wong which explicit applies ONLY to legal aliens and you have a vague amendment as to where it pertains HERE.

The court ruled that a Native American is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because his first allegiance was to his tribe. I can not conceive how this ruling could be a precedent for a baby born in the US. In 1898 the court ruled on the limits of citizenship by birthright. The court usually does not hear a case which would reverse a previous ruling of the court.

14th amendment would have to be revised...

Ain't going to happen, but it makes for a nice thread

 

[R.C. Christian]

How is this information (if accurate) useful? Is someone considering being reborn elsewhere?

BTW, what becomes of babies born in other countries? How do they become citizens, if not by birth?

They don't. They become stateless beings and grow up and riot. See France.

You can't be stateless in the U.S. just saying.

 

[ConHog]

How is this information (if accurate) useful? Is someone considering being reborn elsewhere?

BTW, what becomes of babies born in other countries? How do they become citizens, if not by birth?

They don't. They become stateless beings and grow up and riot. See France.

You can't be stateless in the U.S. just saying.

True enough, but you CAN be born in the US and not be a US citizen. Just depends on what group you're in.

 

[zzzz]

Are illegal’s entitled to the same rights as American citizens under the US constitution? When an illegal is arrested for a crime they are afforded the same rights as citizen’s ad legal aliens. And if found guilty, must serve their sentence out in an American prison. Are illegal’s entitled to own guns? Are they entitled to free speech? Are they entitled to receive federal/state medical benefits? The Supreme Court needs or Congress needs to define what protections and rights, if any, illegal aliens are entitled to. If Islamic terrorists infiltrate into this country and have a child is that child an American citizen? Could they get federal benefits? An illegal from Mexico is and should be treated the same as all illegal aliens.

Personally I believe that anyone entering this country illegally for whatever purpose should be excluded from any protection of the Constitution. If they commit a crime here, yes prosecute them as we do now but it would be preferable to expel them to do their time in their home country if feasible. If they are here illegally their children, if born here will not be citizens. The Supreme Court must interpret the constitution this way or then what is citizenship because illegal’s would have all the same rights and benefits as a citizen. Except the right to vote.

 

[ConHog]

Are illegal’s entitled to the same rights as American citizens under the US constitution? When an illegal is arrested for a crime they are afforded the same rights as citizen’s ad legal aliens. And if found guilty, must serve their sentence out in an American prison. Are illegal’s entitled to own guns? Are they entitled to free speech? Are they entitled to receive federal/state medical benefits? The Supreme Court needs or Congress needs to define what protections and rights, if any, illegal aliens are entitled to. If Islamic terrorists infiltrate into this country and have a child is that child an American citizen? Could they get federal benefits? An illegal from Mexico is and should be treated the same as all illegal aliens.

Personally I believe that anyone entering this country illegally for whatever purpose should be excluded from any protection of the Constitution. If they commit a crime here, yes prosecute them as we do now but it would be preferable to expel them to do their time in their home country if feasible. If they are here illegally their children, if born here will not be citizens. The Supreme Court must interpret the constitution this way or then what is citizenship because illegal’s would have all the same rights and benefits as a citizen. Except the right to vote.

You bring up a scary point. and one that many people don't think about. What about if an Al Queda cell illegally enters the country and has a Muslim woman drop a baby, that baby is under the current interpretation a naturalized US citizen, who could theoretically run for president at age 35 despite his ancestry. That isn't right..... And is in fact scary.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,



1. I can tell you plainly, American politicians are way to stupid to fix this stupid ass problem.
2. And I blame every politician from day one of USA.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas