Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[paddymurphy]

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Boss you have done it again! Your emphasized text above in the red and purple are all in the same group! Do you see any conjunction in there joining disparate groups of people? Of course not. That is because the sentence is referring to the persons who are born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are foreigners, aliens. Same words, with the same meaning put into 21st Century parlance.They are a single class of persons with regard to Amendment XIV!

No... It's a lot of twisting and gyrating to find an alternative meaning in a sentence with way too many words to ever mean what you claim.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...

So why is the red part even in the sentence? It's redundant. If it means what you claim, it doen't even need to be there... read the sentence without it. Obviously, foreign ambassadors and ministers are foreigners and aliens. I don't think in all our history we've ever had a foreign diplomat from another country who was an American citizen. So this doesn't regard parlance or what century, it's about sentence construction and comprehending basic English grammar.

I already explained why that is in the sentence. It was pointed out to you how to read it correctly, but if you did you would be admitting error, which is something you have neither the dignity nor the honor to admit any error on your part!

Your "excuse" that the commas represent the conjunctive "or" is absolutely and astonishingly ABSURD! The portion of the quote you placed is anything but redundant. IT IS DECLARITIVE!!!! That class is the EXCEPTION in the Amendment the author of the sentence is talking about, and to which he goes on to say,"... but will include every other class of persons."

The author of Amendment XIV sets out the two classes of people, to which the first clause of the first Section applies and do not apply in that sentence you quoted! The children born in the US, the foreigners, aliens to those in diplomatic service to another Nation is the first class which is excluded and all other children born in the US and to those children born in the US to all other parents NOT in diplomatic service in the second class! You cited the author's declaration so you live with the meaning as the author intended. A comma is shorthand for "OR"? That is utterly laughable! Your damn dog must've eaten your homework daily for however long you were in school!

For your edification...
From Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary:

obtuse -
1. .....
2. a: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid
b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

You haven't explained anything. I'm not reading it incorrectly. What you continue to want to do is dissect sentences to make them mean what you want them to mean. You claim the author of the 14th was being "declarative" when he said "..who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of diplomats." I disagree. There is no need to declare ambassadors and foreign ministers are foreigners and aliens...this is redundant information. Anyone with a brain greater than Terri Schiavo understands a foreign minister is foreign! -- Furthermore, there is a clear distinction made here between a "foreigner" and an "alien" and you also want to ignore that.

So don't lecture me and tell me I have to live with YOUR interpretation of what he meant. I don't have to live with ANYTHING your moronic ass claims.. .EVER!

Actually, you do have to live with the children of illegal aliens born here being citizens. They are. Probably close to 700 were born today and, guess what, they are United States Citizens. They will be voting in 18 years. And you cannot do a fucking thing about it.

We will see about that. Your'e wrong.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Boss]

Actually, you do have to live with the children of illegal aliens born here being citizens.

No I don't and I'm not going to. Sorry! You don't get to decide who citizens are.

They are. Probably close to 700 were born today and, guess what, they are United States Citizens.

I don't know how many are born when but they aren't US citizens unless Congress makes them US citizens.

They will be voting in 18 years. And you cannot do a fucking thing about it.

Yes there is much that can be done. The policy can be changed very easily. This is completely statutory and a plenary power of Congress... so go fuck yourself.

While you're fucking yourself, contemplate what a total tool you are to be a cheerleader for something that is decimating the middle class and working poor in America, driving down wages, killing jobs, destroying the education system, driving up the cost of health care, burdening emergency services beyond their brink and driving violent crime through the roof across the southern border.

You are such a stupid little sheep that you will follow along with the crowd of other sheep instead of opening your eyes. Even when what you are being told to support is contradictory to everything you've claimed to stand for.

 

[Boss]

...the language is clear, the intent is also clear. the current interpretation is wrong. an amendment is not needed, SCOTUS or congress could fix it.

I disagree that SCOTUS can fix this. They can't fix this any more than they can choose a president or pass a bill into law.... It's NOT within their Constitutional authority pursuant to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4. It is an enumerated and plenary power of Congress... one of a limited few powers granted to Congress and Congress alone. Not the Supreme Court, not MSNBC, not some talking head "expert" and not some liberal pinheads on a message board who don't comprehend the most rudimentary English grammar.

Back to that idiocy. The power to legislate the naturalization process has not a damn thing to do who is a natural born citizen.

There is nothing in the 14th about "natural born" anything... what the fuck are you talking about?

It DOES however say this:

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Again-- This not Gay Marriage. This is an enumerated and plenary power of Congress... and NOT JUST the power to set naturalization process, but all matters relating to naturalization (aka: citizenship).

Because of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4, Congress doesn't even need to pass a legislative act. A joint resolution would suffice because this is within the plenary enumerated powers of Congress.

So let's say Trump wins and Republicans retain control of the House and Senate... All we need to do is pass a joint resolution that babies born of illegal aliens are NOT, by virtue of birth, legal US citizens. That's the end of the story... there is no SCOTUS override here.

 

[paddymurphy]

...the language is clear, the intent is also clear. the current interpretation is wrong. an amendment is not needed, SCOTUS or congress could fix it.

I disagree that SCOTUS can fix this. They can't fix this any more than they can choose a president or pass a bill into law.... It's NOT within their Constitutional authority pursuant to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4. It is an enumerated and plenary power of Congress... one of a limited few powers granted to Congress and Congress alone. Not the Supreme Court, not MSNBC, not some talking head "expert" and not some liberal pinheads on a message board who don't comprehend the most rudimentary English grammar.

Back to that idiocy. The power to legislate the naturalization process has not a damn thing to do who is a natural born citizen.

There is nothing in the 14th about "natural born" anything... what the fuck are you talking about?

It DOES however say this:

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Again-- This not Gay Marriage. This is an enumerated and plenary power of Congress... and NOT JUST the power to set naturalization process, but all matters relating to naturalization (aka: citizenship).

Because of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4, Congress doesn't even need to pass a legislative act. A joint resolution would suffice because this is within the plenary enumerated powers of Congress.

So let's say Trump wins and Republicans retain control of the House and Senate... All we need to do is pass a joint resolution that babies born of illegal aliens are NOT, by virtue of birth, legal US citizens. That's the end of the story... there is no SCOTUS override here.

Actually, you do have to live with the children of illegal aliens born here being citizens.

No I don't and I'm not going to. Sorry! You don't get to decide who citizens are.

They are. Probably close to 700 were born today and, guess what, they are United States Citizens.

I don't know how many are born when but they aren't US citizens unless Congress makes them US citizens.

They will be voting in 18 years. And you cannot do a fucking thing about it.

Yes there is much that can be done. The policy can be changed very easily. This is completely statutory and a plenary power of Congress... so go fuck yourself.

While you're fucking yourself, contemplate what a total tool you are to be a cheerleader for something that is decimating the middle class and working poor in America, driving down wages, killing jobs, destroying the education system, driving up the cost of health care, burdening emergency services beyond their brink and driving violent crime through the roof across the southern border.

You are such a stupid little sheep that you will follow along with the crowd of other sheep instead of opening your eyes. Even when what you are being told to support is contradictory to everything you've claimed to stand for.

You are a hoot!!! They are citizens. Every child born to illegals since 1898 has bee a U.S. Citizen. Millions of them. The Supreme Court, and any other court that has had to address, even tangentially, a case involving a person born hee to illegal alien parents, has accepted, as a matter of law and of fact, that if you are born here you are a U.S. Citizen. Why do you think this is being discussed? What is it Donald wants to change if they are not citizens? Do you know what the word "plenary" means? And if you are having trouble finding and keeping a good job and if your kids are not getting the education they need, look in the mirror. There's your problem! You are a loser.

 

[paddymurphy]

...the language is clear, the intent is also clear. the current interpretation is wrong. an amendment is not needed, SCOTUS or congress could fix it.

I disagree that SCOTUS can fix this. They can't fix this any more than they can choose a president or pass a bill into law.... It's NOT within their Constitutional authority pursuant to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4. It is an enumerated and plenary power of Congress... one of a limited few powers granted to Congress and Congress alone. Not the Supreme Court, not MSNBC, not some talking head "expert" and not some liberal pinheads on a message board who don't comprehend the most rudimentary English grammar.

Back to that idiocy. The power to legislate the naturalization process has not a damn thing to do who is a natural born citizen.

There is nothing in the 14th about "natural born" anything... what the fuck are you talking about?

It DOES however say this:

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Again-- This not Gay Marriage. This is an enumerated and plenary power of Congress... and NOT JUST the power to set naturalization process, but all matters relating to naturalization (aka: citizenship).

Because of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4, Congress doesn't even need to pass a legislative act. A joint resolution would suffice because this is within the plenary enumerated powers of Congress.

So let's say Trump wins and Republicans retain control of the House and Senate... All we need to do is pass a joint resolution that babies born of illegal aliens are NOT, by virtue of birth, legal US citizens. That's the end of the story... there is no SCOTUS override here.

So, you were not aware that there are natural born citizens and those who were citizens elsewhere and became naturalized citizens? And you don't think that the Supreme Court has the power to declare a congressional act in violation of the Constitution? C'mon? You cannot be real? No one can possibly be that stupid! You are just pretending to think this nonsense to mess with me, right?

 

[Camp]

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Boss you have done it again! Your emphasized text above in the red and purple are all in the same group! Do you see any conjunction in there joining disparate groups of people? Of course not. That is because the sentence is referring to the persons who are born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are foreigners, aliens. Same words, with the same meaning put into 21st Century parlance.They are a single class of persons with regard to Amendment XIV!

No... It's a lot of twisting and gyrating to find an alternative meaning in a sentence with way too many words to ever mean what you claim.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...

So why is the red part even in the sentence? It's redundant. If it means what you claim, it doen't even need to be there... read the sentence without it. Obviously, foreign ambassadors and ministers are foreigners and aliens. I don't think in all our history we've ever had a foreign diplomat from another country who was an American citizen. So this doesn't regard parlance or what century, it's about sentence construction and comprehending basic English grammar.

I already explained why that is in the sentence. It was pointed out to you how to read it correctly, but if you did you would be admitting error, which is something you have neither the dignity nor the honor to admit any error on your part!

Your "excuse" that the commas represent the conjunctive "or" is absolutely and astonishingly ABSURD! The portion of the quote you placed is anything but redundant. IT IS DECLARITIVE!!!! That class is the EXCEPTION in the Amendment the author of the sentence is talking about, and to which he goes on to say,"... but will include every other class of persons."

The author of Amendment XIV sets out the two classes of people, to which the first clause of the first Section applies and do not apply in that sentence you quoted! The children born in the US, the foreigners, aliens to those in diplomatic service to another Nation is the first class which is excluded and all other children born in the US and to those children born in the US to all other parents NOT in diplomatic service in the second class! You cited the author's declaration so you live with the meaning as the author intended. A comma is shorthand for "OR"? That is utterly laughable! Your damn dog must've eaten your homework daily for however long you were in school!

For your edification...
From Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary:

obtuse -
1. .....
2. a: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid
b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

You haven't explained anything. I'm not reading it incorrectly. What you continue to want to do is dissect sentences to make them mean what you want them to mean. You claim the author of the 14th was being "declarative" when he said "..who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of diplomats." I disagree. There is no need to declare ambassadors and foreign ministers are foreigners and aliens...this is redundant information. Anyone with a brain greater than Terri Schiavo understands a foreign minister is foreign! -- Furthermore, there is a clear distinction made here between a "foreigner" and an "alien" and you also want to ignore that.

So don't lecture me and tell me I have to live with YOUR interpretation of what he meant. I don't have to live with ANYTHING your moronic ass claims.. .EVER!

What is the difference between foreign and alien?

 

[paddymurphy]

Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Boss you have done it again! Your emphasized text above in the red and purple are all in the same group! Do you see any conjunction in there joining disparate groups of people? Of course not. That is because the sentence is referring to the persons who are born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are foreigners, aliens. Same words, with the same meaning put into 21st Century parlance.They are a single class of persons with regard to Amendment XIV!

No... It's a lot of twisting and gyrating to find an alternative meaning in a sentence with way too many words to ever mean what you claim.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...

So why is the red part even in the sentence? It's redundant. If it means what you claim, it doen't even need to be there... read the sentence without it. Obviously, foreign ambassadors and ministers are foreigners and aliens. I don't think in all our history we've ever had a foreign diplomat from another country who was an American citizen. So this doesn't regard parlance or what century, it's about sentence construction and comprehending basic English grammar.

I already explained why that is in the sentence. It was pointed out to you how to read it correctly, but if you did you would be admitting error, which is something you have neither the dignity nor the honor to admit any error on your part!

Your "excuse" that the commas represent the conjunctive "or" is absolutely and astonishingly ABSURD! The portion of the quote you placed is anything but redundant. IT IS DECLARITIVE!!!! That class is the EXCEPTION in the Amendment the author of the sentence is talking about, and to which he goes on to say,"... but will include every other class of persons."

The author of Amendment XIV sets out the two classes of people, to which the first clause of the first Section applies and do not apply in that sentence you quoted! The children born in the US, the foreigners, aliens to those in diplomatic service to another Nation is the first class which is excluded and all other children born in the US and to those children born in the US to all other parents NOT in diplomatic service in the second class! You cited the author's declaration so you live with the meaning as the author intended. A comma is shorthand for "OR"? That is utterly laughable! Your damn dog must've eaten your homework daily for however long you were in school!

For your edification...
From Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary:

obtuse -
1. .....
2. a: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid
b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

You haven't explained anything. I'm not reading it incorrectly. What you continue to want to do is dissect sentences to make them mean what you want them to mean. You claim the author of the 14th was being "declarative" when he said "..who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of diplomats." I disagree. There is no need to declare ambassadors and foreign ministers are foreigners and aliens...this is redundant information. Anyone with a brain greater than Terri Schiavo understands a foreign minister is foreign! -- Furthermore, there is a clear distinction made here between a "foreigner" and an "alien" and you also want to ignore that.

So don't lecture me and tell me I have to live with YOUR interpretation of what he meant. I don't have to live with ANYTHING your moronic ass claims.. .EVER!

What is the difference between foreign and alien?

None. The senator was speaking. He referenced foreigners, aliens, WHO ARE... The who referred to foreigners or aliens. Only foreigners or aliens who are ambassadors were excluded from being able to have children here and not have them be citizens.

 

[Syriusly]

No- thats not all it was written for.

My god- have you ever even read the Constitution?

Yes, many times. But obviously you have not read it or studied any american history. You don't even understand what this country stands for.

I may disagree with you about what the United States stands for- but I clearly understand it far better than you do.

you obviously do not. are you a product of the teachers union?

Were you "home schooled"?

graduated from an integrated high school
Bachelors degree from a state university
MBA from Harvard
Post Graduate studies at Wharton and Harvard
Did business internationally in the UK, Japan, Germany, France, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia.

I am quite sure that my educational and experience qualifications exceed yours.

but I would be glad to compare.

Graduated from high school- can't say mine was very integrated.
Bachelors from a State University.
Masters in Economics from a less prestigious graduate school
Studied at London School of Economics and did post grad work in what was Yugoslavia
I have done business in Italy, Mexico, Canada, and China.

Now if you could just show a simple grasp of the law- or that you have ever learned any ethics.

 

[paperview]

...the language is clear, the intent is also clear. the current interpretation is wrong. an amendment is not needed, SCOTUS or congress could fix it.

I disagree that SCOTUS can fix this. They can't fix this any more than they can choose a president or pass a bill into law.... It's NOT within their Constitutional authority pursuant to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4. It is an enumerated and plenary power of Congress... one of a limited few powers granted to Congress and Congress alone. Not the Supreme Court, not MSNBC, not some talking head "expert" and not some liberal pinheads on a message board who don't comprehend the most rudimentary English grammar.

Back to that idiocy. The power to legislate the naturalization process has not a damn thing to do who is a natural born citizen.

There is nothing in the 14th about "natural born" anything... what the fuck are you talking about?

It DOES however say this:

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Again-- This not Gay Marriage. This is an enumerated and plenary power of Congress... and NOT JUST the power to set naturalization process, but all matters relating to naturalization (aka: citizenship).

Because of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4, Congress doesn't even need to pass a legislative act. A joint resolution would suffice because this is within the plenary enumerated powers of Congress.

So let's say Trump wins and Republicans retain control of the House and Senate... All we need to do is pass a joint resolution that babies born of illegal aliens are NOT, by virtue of birth, legal US citizens. That's the end of the story... there is no SCOTUS override here.

You run with that, bucktooth.

 

[Syriusly]

...the language is clear, the intent is also clear. the current interpretation is wrong. an amendment is not needed, SCOTUS or congress could fix it.

I disagree that SCOTUS can fix this. They can't fix this any more than they can choose a president or pass a bill into law.... It's NOT within their Constitutional authority pursuant to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4. It is an enumerated and plenary power of Congress... one of a limited few powers granted to Congress and Congress alone. Not the Supreme Court, not MSNBC, not some talking head "expert" and not some liberal pinheads on a message board who don't comprehend the most rudimentary English grammar.

Back to that idiocy. The power to legislate the naturalization process has not a damn thing to do who is a natural born citizen.

There is nothing in the 14th about "natural born" anything... what the fuck are you talking about?

It DOES however say this:

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Again-- This not Gay Marriage. This is an enumerated and plenary power of Congress... and NOT JUST the power to set naturalization process, but all matters relating to naturalization (aka: citizenship).

Because of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4, Congress doesn't even need to pass a legislative act. A joint resolution would suffice because this is within the plenary enumerated powers of Congress.

So let's say Trump wins and Republicans retain control of the House and Senate... All we need to do is pass a joint resolution that babies born of illegal aliens are NOT, by virtue of birth, legal US citizens. That's the end of the story... there is no SCOTUS override here.

If that was challenged in court- as it surely would be- the Supreme Court could overturn your proposed law as being unconstitutional- which it most likely would since it would run contrary to the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

Really if you are so committed to this- why don't you want to change the Constitution to say what you want it to say?

 

[Syriusly]

Actually, you do have to live with the children of illegal aliens born here being citizens.

No I don't and I'm not going to. Sorry! You don't get to decide who citizens are.

They are. Probably close to 700 were born today and, guess what, they are United States Citizens.

I don't know how many are born when but they aren't US citizens unless Congress makes them US citizensr.

The Supreme Court disagrees

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Boss you have done it again! Your emphasized text above in the red and purple are all in the same group! Do you see any conjunction in there joining disparate groups of people? Of course not. That is because the sentence is referring to the persons who are born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are foreigners, aliens. Same words, with the same meaning put into 21st Century parlance.They are a single class of persons with regard to Amendment XIV!

No... It's a lot of twisting and gyrating to find an alternative meaning in a sentence with way too many words to ever mean what you claim.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...

So why is the red part even in the sentence? It's redundant. If it means what you claim, it doen't even need to be there... read the sentence without it. Obviously, foreign ambassadors and ministers are foreigners and aliens. I don't think in all our history we've ever had a foreign diplomat from another country who was an American citizen. So this doesn't regard parlance or what century, it's about sentence construction and comprehending basic English grammar.

I already explained why that is in the sentence. It was pointed out to you how to read it correctly, but if you did you would be admitting error, which is something you have neither the dignity nor the honor to admit any error on your part!

Your "excuse" that the commas represent the conjunctive "or" is absolutely and astonishingly ABSURD! The portion of the quote you placed is anything but redundant. IT IS DECLARITIVE!!!! That class is the EXCEPTION in the Amendment the author of the sentence is talking about, and to which he goes on to say,"... but will include every other class of persons."

The author of Amendment XIV sets out the two classes of people, to which the first clause of the first Section applies and do not apply in that sentence you quoted! The children born in the US, the foreigners, aliens to those in diplomatic service to another Nation is the first class which is excluded and all other children born in the US and to those children born in the US to all other parents NOT in diplomatic service in the second class! You cited the author's declaration so you live with the meaning as the author intended. A comma is shorthand for "OR"? That is utterly laughable! Your damn dog must've eaten your homework daily for however long you were in school!

For your edification...
From Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary:

obtuse -
1. .....
2. a: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid
b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

You haven't explained anything. I'm not reading it incorrectly. What you continue to want to do is dissect sentences to make them mean what you want them to mean. You claim the author of the 14th was being "declarative" when he said "..who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of diplomats." I disagree. There is no need to declare ambassadors and foreign ministers are foreigners and aliens...this is redundant information. Anyone with a brain greater than Terri Schiavo understands a foreign minister is foreign! -- Furthermore, there is a clear distinction made here between a "foreigner" and an "alien" and you also want to ignore that.

So don't lecture me and tell me I have to live with YOUR interpretation of what he meant. I don't have to live with ANYTHING your moronic ass claims.. .EVER!

If the statement wasn't declarative, what the Hell was it? You brought it up, you do not wish to admit the statement's actual intent. You truncated part of the sentence to make it appear a fallacious argument. Does the full context of your sentence fragment, "..who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of diplomats." match that of the the full quote? HELL NO!

The "who" at the lead of that sentence fragment refers to the "persons born in the United States" not their parents who are foreign nationals and should be read, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong...." It's the persons born in the US not the diplomatic parents you dolt! The sentence identifies by declaration WHO is excluded and those exclusions are the children born in the US of diplomatic types accredited, i.e. officially recognized by the United States, all others notwithstanding!

The children are being declared, by the author of the Amendment, to be a separate class of foreign aliens who would NOT be considered for birthright citizenship. It is an OBVIOUS given that the parents, being on a diplomatic mission from another Nation would be foreign aliens by definition. No redundancy exists in that entire sentence. Get used to it and LIVE WITH IT!

And thank you for playing "Let's Challenge Reality!"

 

[Syriusly]

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Boss you have done it again! Your emphasized text above in the red and purple are all in the same group! Do you see any conjunction in there joining disparate groups of people? Of course not. That is because the sentence is referring to the persons who are born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are foreigners, aliens. Same words, with the same meaning put into 21st Century parlance.They are a single class of persons with regard to Amendment XIV!

No... It's a lot of twisting and gyrating to find an alternative meaning in a sentence with way too many words to ever mean what you claim.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...

So why is the red part even in the sentence? It's redundant. If it means what you claim, it doen't even need to be there... read the sentence without it. Obviously, foreign ambassadors and ministers are foreigners and aliens. I don't think in all our history we've ever had a foreign diplomat from another country who was an American citizen. So this doesn't regard parlance or what century, it's about sentence construction and comprehending basic English grammar.

I already explained why that is in the sentence. It was pointed out to you how to read it correctly, but if you did you would be admitting error, which is something you have neither the dignity nor the honor to admit any error on your part!

Your "excuse" that the commas represent the conjunctive "or" is absolutely and astonishingly ABSURD! The portion of the quote you placed is anything but redundant. IT IS DECLARITIVE!!!! That class is the EXCEPTION in the Amendment the author of the sentence is talking about, and to which he goes on to say,"... but will include every other class of persons."

The author of Amendment XIV sets out the two classes of people, to which the first clause of the first Section applies and do not apply in that sentence you quoted! The children born in the US, the foreigners, aliens to those in diplomatic service to another Nation is the first class which is excluded and all other children born in the US and to those children born in the US to all other parents NOT in diplomatic service in the second class! You cited the author's declaration so you live with the meaning as the author intended. A comma is shorthand for "OR"? That is utterly laughable! Your damn dog must've eaten your homework daily for however long you were in school!

For your edification...
From Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary:

obtuse -
1. .....
2. a: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid
b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

So don't lecture me and tell me I have to live with YOUR interpretation of what he meant. I don't have to live with ANYTHING your moronic ass claims.. .EVER!

You are living with it every day

In INS v. Rios-Pineda a unanimous Court observed:

By that time, respondent wife [an undocumented alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

 

[paperview]

The National Effing Review:

(those libs!)

<snip>

"Almost all aliens in the United States, even citizens of other nations, still fall within our jurisdiction while they are in our territory:

Otherwise they could commit crimes of all sorts without fear of punishment. Other uses of “jurisdiction” in the Constitution, such as in the 13th and 14th Amendments, also refer to the power to govern by law, not national allegiance. Instead, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to certain discrete categories of people excluded from citizenship, even though they might be born on U.S. territory.

These include the children of diplomats and enemy soldiers at war who are occupying territory. These individuals could be on U.S. territory, but are not subject to U.S. law. A third and obvious category was American Indians. At the time of the 14th Amendment, American Indians were still considered semi-sovereigns who governed themselves with their own laws and made treaties with the United States.

But “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” did not grant Congress the power to pick and choose among different ethnic and national groups for citizenship. Instead, the phrase recognized a few narrow exceptions to the general principle of birthright citizenship that has prevailed throughout American history.

Second, constitutional history. There is only one blemish on the American tradition of birthright citizenship: Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857).

In that notorious case, Chief Justice Roger Taney led a majority of the Supreme Court in striking down the Compromise of 1850, which limited slavery in the territories. Taney found that slaves were property and they, and their children, could never be citizens, even though born in the United States. Dred Scott helped precipitate the tragedy of the Civil War by preventing Congress from limiting the spread of slavery and reaching a compromise between North and South. Section One of the 14th Amendment directly overruled Dred Scott’s selective grant of citizenship to some races but not others.

The universal nature of birthright citizenship was made clear in the amendment’s drafting history. During congressional consideration, critics argued that the text would recognize as citizens the children of aliens. In particular, these opponents wanted to allow the western states to “deal with [the Chinese] as in their wisdom they see fit.”

Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania asked: “I am really desirous to have a legal definition of ‘citizenship of the United States.’ What does it mean?” Cowan asked: “Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child born of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?” Supporters of the 14th Amendment agreed with Cowan’s reading, even though it may have lost votes for their proposal. Senator John Conness of California replied to Cowan:

“The provision before us . . . relates to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so.” Conness would lose his Senate seat because of his defense of the rights of Chinese immigrants, but the amendment would go to the states for ratification on the understanding that it granted birthright citizenship to the children of aliens.

Third, Supreme Court precedent. Ever since ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has consistently read Section One as granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens on U.S. territory.

The Supreme Court’s reading of the Constitution does not automatically bind the other branches of government or the people — that is another lesson of the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln, for example, rose to prominence by attacking Dred Scott and pledging not to enforce the opinion beyond the parties to the case.

But this is one decision of the Court with which he would have agreed. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court faced the birthright-citizenship question directly. Ark involved a child born to Chinese parents in San Francisco. The child left the United States for a trip but was barred from returning to the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Act. While the parents remained Chinese citizens, the child claimed U.S. citizenship under the birthright reading of the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court upheld the child’s citizenship by virtue of his birth in San Francisco. While Congress could block immigration entirely or control the process of naturalization, it could not alter the right of citizenship for all born within American borders. The Court read the 14th Amendment to recognize the existing American practice of granting citizenship based on birthplace. It saw no support for a new exclusion of the children of aliens.

“The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.” The Justices explained that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” only codified the existing exclusions for children of “alien enemies in hostile occupation,” “diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,” and “members of the Indian tribes.”

Only these categories “had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.” The Court explicitly rejected the claim made today by some that aliens, because they owed allegiance to a foreign nation, were not within “the jurisdiction” of the United States. Instead, the Court concluded that the amendment “in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”

The Supreme Court has never seen fit to question its original judgment in Wong Kim Ark. In this case, unlike others (such as Obergefell), the Supreme Court read the constitutional text, structure, and history exactly right.

Of course, the American people can always amend the Constitution to change the principle of birthright citizenship. Putting to one side the waste of time and resources entailed, amending the Constitution would be a sorry mistake. Rather than being a misguided act of generosity, the 14th Amendment marks one of the great achievements of the Republican party. It was the Republican party that opposed Dred Scott.

It was the Republican party that fought and won the Civil War. And it was the Republican party that drafted and ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which did away with slavery and any distinction between Americans based on race. If we are to discard one of the greatest attributes of American exceptionalism, let it be the handiwork of nativist Democrats and candidates who appeal to the lesser angels of their nature.

Read more at: Birthright Citizenship & Donald Trump | National Review Online

 

[Syriusly]

Here is the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

Where does it say 'except Anchor babies"?

don't be more ridiculous than you already are. of course it does not mention anchor babies, the concept was not even thought of in those days.

I am not questioning the words of the 14th amendment, I understand what the words say. What I am trying to get through your thick skull is that the drafters of that amendment did not, and could not, comtemplate that their words would ever be used to grant citizenship to the children of people in this country illegally. Illegally is a term of art in this discussion. It means what it meant at the time, not what it is being interpreted to mean today.

Right. Whether or not the foreign parents of a child born here were here legally or not is not something that either those who ratified the 14th Amendment cared to address or that the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark cared to address. Had they wanted to address it, the amendment could have done so. They did not. What they did address were the two things that made a person a natural born citizen. One, being born in the United States. Two, being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. A child born to illegal aliens meet both of these conditions. If you want to change that, the constitution has to be amended.

the 14th did not comtemplate children being born to what we refer to today as illegal aliens. The current interpretation will very likely be overturned by SCOTUS in the next couple of years.

The current interpretation (and thats what it is) is causing serious damage to this country and must be corrected.

The current interpretation is based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

If you think that should be corrected, that is what the Amendment process was put in the Constitution for.

the language is clear, the intent is also clear. the current interpretation is wrong. an amendment is not needed, SCOTUS or congress could fix it.

The language is clear. The 'current interpretation' is the same interpretation that has been used since the founding of the United States.

Why exactly are you so scared to actually try to fix what you think is broken?

 

[Syriusly]

Hmmm, I seem to have missed the words "anchor babies". Can you point them out for us?

Nowhere in that discussion is the current issue discussed, i.e. a pregnant woman entering the country days before giving birth solely in order to make her child an american citizen and thereby allowing her and her husband to stay in this country.

That is what is going on today and its a violation of the 14th amendment and the intent of the the writers of that amendment.

Here is the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

Where does it say 'except Anchor babies"?

don't be more ridiculous than you already are. of course it does not mention anchor babies, the concept was not even thought of in those days.

I am not questioning the words of the 14th amendment, I understand what the words say. What I am trying to get through your thick skull is that the drafters of that amendment did not, and could not, comtemplate that their words would ever be used to grant citizenship to the children of people in this country illegally. Illegally is a term of art in this discussion. It means what it meant at the time, not what it is being interpreted to mean today.

You were the one who said you didn't see the term 'anchor babies' in Wong Kim Ark- I was pointing out that they are not mentioned in the 14th Amendment either.

If you do not think that the language of the 14th Amendment fits today's circumstances, our Constitution provides a method to correct it. We don't just get to pretend the Constitution doesn't say what it is because you think the writers didn't anticipate a problem.

amazing, this BS coming from someone who constantly attacks the "words" of the 2nd amendment. We shouldn't take that one literally, but we have to take the 14th literally, you are a hypocrite like most liberals.

When have I attacked the words of the 2nd Amendment?

Please- provide that quote. I am very curious. Sometimes I am forgetful, but I can't remember posting about the 2nd Amendment in years.

Or are you just lying- again?

Still waiting Redfish- or is your silence just an admission that you were lying- again?

 

[paperview]

...the language is clear, the intent is also clear. the current interpretation is wrong. an amendment is not needed, SCOTUS or congress could fix it.

I disagree that SCOTUS can fix this. They can't fix this any more than they can choose a president or pass a bill into law.... It's NOT within their Constitutional authority pursuant to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4. It is an enumerated and plenary power of Congress... one of a limited few powers granted to Congress and Congress alone. Not the Supreme Court, not MSNBC, not some talking head "expert" and not some liberal pinheads on a message board who don't comprehend the most rudimentary English grammar.

Back to that idiocy. The power to legislate the naturalization process has not a damn thing to do who is a natural born citizen.

There is nothing in the 14th about "natural born" anything... what the fuck are you talking about?

It DOES however say this:

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Again-- This not Gay Marriage. This is an enumerated and plenary power of Congress... and NOT JUST the power to set naturalization process, but all matters relating to naturalization (aka: citizenship).

Because of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4, Congress doesn't even need to pass a legislative act. A joint resolution would suffice because this is within the plenary enumerated powers of Congress.

So let's say Trump wins and Republicans retain control of the House and Senate... All we need to do is pass a joint resolution that babies born of illegal aliens are NOT, by virtue of birth, legal US citizens. That's the end of the story... there is no SCOTUS override here.

If that was challenged in court- as it surely would be- the Supreme Court could overturn your proposed law as being unconstitutional- which it most likely would since it would run contrary to the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

Really if you are so committed to this- why don't you want to change the Constitution to say what you want it to say?

It surely would be -- and this was addressed numerous times, here's one response from the Asst. AG from 20 years ago

Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General "Legislation denying citizenship at birth to certain children born in the United States", Memoranda and Opinions (Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice),-- A bill that would deny citizenship to children born in the United States to certain classes of alien parents is unconstitutional on its face. A constitutional amendment to restrict birthright citizenship, although not technically unlawful, would flatly contradict the Nation's constitutional history and constitutional traditions..

 

[Syriusly]

No- thats not all it was written for.

My god- have you ever even read the Constitution?

Yes, many times. But obviously you have not read it or studied any american history. You don't even understand what this country stands for.

I may disagree with you about what the United States stands for- but I clearly understand it far better than you do.

you obviously do not. are you a product of the teachers union?

Were you "home schooled"?

graduated from an integrated high school
Bachelors degree from a state university
MBA from Harvard
Post Graduate studies at Wharton and Harvard
Did business internationally in the UK, Japan, Germany, France, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia.

I am quite sure that my educational and experience qualifications exceed yours.

but I would be glad to compare.

Amazing isn't it- you supposedly have all of this education- yet you manage to not only get wrong/lie about the 14th Amendment being only about giving citizenship to slaves- you manage to think you know more about the 14th Amendment than scholars like James Ho- who have verifiable Constitutional training

James C. Ho is a partner in the Dallas office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. He has over a decade of government experience, including all three branches of the federal government, and most recently as Solicitor General of Texas, the State’s chief appellate lawyer.


An experienced appellate, business, and constitutional litigator, Mr. Ho is 21-3 as lead counsel in various federal and state courts, including 3-0 before the U.S. Supreme Court, in cases decided by opinion. His amicus briefs have been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, and the Texas Supreme Court.


In addition, Mr. Ho counsels clients on constitutional issues and legal strategy in disputes involving the executive and legislative branches of state and federal government and in other adversarial contexts. He has testified before Congress and the Texas Legislature.


Mr. Ho has been recognized as a leading appellate and constitutional lawyer by The National Law Journal, Law360, Texas Lawyer, and Texas Super Lawyers. Law360 noted his “impressive string of victories before state and federal appeals courts,” while The National Law Journal placed him among the “upper echelons of Supreme Court practice.”

Government and Public Service Experience


As Solicitor General of Texas, Mr. Ho represented and counseled Attorney General Greg Abbott and other government officials and agencies in the State’s most difficult legal disputes. He has the highest win rate at the U.S. Supreme Court of any Texas solicitor general, and is the first state solicitor general in the nation to be invited by the Court to express the views of a state. He also received three Supreme Court Best Brief Awards from the National Association of Attorneys General.

Mr. Ho graduated from Stanford University with honors and a B.A. in Public Policy, and the University of Chicago Law School with high honors.

 

[Camp]

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Boss you have done it again! Your emphasized text above in the red and purple are all in the same group! Do you see any conjunction in there joining disparate groups of people? Of course not. That is because the sentence is referring to the persons who are born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are foreigners, aliens. Same words, with the same meaning put into 21st Century parlance.They are a single class of persons with regard to Amendment XIV!

No... It's a lot of twisting and gyrating to find an alternative meaning in a sentence with way too many words to ever mean what you claim.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...

So why is the red part even in the sentence? It's redundant. If it means what you claim, it doen't even need to be there... read the sentence without it. Obviously, foreign ambassadors and ministers are foreigners and aliens. I don't think in all our history we've ever had a foreign diplomat from another country who was an American citizen. So this doesn't regard parlance or what century, it's about sentence construction and comprehending basic English grammar.

I already explained why that is in the sentence. It was pointed out to you how to read it correctly, but if you did you would be admitting error, which is something you have neither the dignity nor the honor to admit any error on your part!

Your "excuse" that the commas represent the conjunctive "or" is absolutely and astonishingly ABSURD! The portion of the quote you placed is anything but redundant. IT IS DECLARITIVE!!!! That class is the EXCEPTION in the Amendment the author of the sentence is talking about, and to which he goes on to say,"... but will include every other class of persons."

The author of Amendment XIV sets out the two classes of people, to which the first clause of the first Section applies and do not apply in that sentence you quoted! The children born in the US, the foreigners, aliens to those in diplomatic service to another Nation is the first class which is excluded and all other children born in the US and to those children born in the US to all other parents NOT in diplomatic service in the second class! You cited the author's declaration so you live with the meaning as the author intended. A comma is shorthand for "OR"? That is utterly laughable! Your damn dog must've eaten your homework daily for however long you were in school!

For your edification...
From Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary:

obtuse -
1. .....
2. a: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid
b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

You haven't explained anything. I'm not reading it incorrectly. What you continue to want to do is dissect sentences to make them mean what you want them to mean. You claim the author of the 14th was being "declarative" when he said "..who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of diplomats." I disagree. There is no need to declare ambassadors and foreign ministers are foreigners and aliens...this is redundant information. Anyone with a brain greater than Terri Schiavo understands a foreign minister is foreign! -- Furthermore, there is a clear distinction made here between a "foreigner" and an "alien" and you also want to ignore that.

So don't lecture me and tell me I have to live with YOUR interpretation of what he meant. I don't have to live with ANYTHING your moronic ass claims.. .EVER!

What is the difference between foreign and alien?

None. The senator was speaking. He referenced foreigners, aliens, WHO ARE... The who referred to foreigners or aliens. Only foreigners or aliens

Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Boss you have done it again! Your emphasized text above in the red and purple are all in the same group! Do you see any conjunction in there joining disparate groups of people? Of course not. That is because the sentence is referring to the persons who are born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are foreigners, aliens. Same words, with the same meaning put into 21st Century parlance.They are a single class of persons with regard to Amendment XIV!

No... It's a lot of twisting and gyrating to find an alternative meaning in a sentence with way too many words to ever mean what you claim.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...

So why is the red part even in the sentence? It's redundant. If it means what you claim, it doen't even need to be there... read the sentence without it. Obviously, foreign ambassadors and ministers are foreigners and aliens. I don't think in all our history we've ever had a foreign diplomat from another country who was an American citizen. So this doesn't regard parlance or what century, it's about sentence construction and comprehending basic English grammar.

I already explained why that is in the sentence. It was pointed out to you how to read it correctly, but if you did you would be admitting error, which is something you have neither the dignity nor the honor to admit any error on your part!

Your "excuse" that the commas represent the conjunctive "or" is absolutely and astonishingly ABSURD! The portion of the quote you placed is anything but redundant. IT IS DECLARITIVE!!!! That class is the EXCEPTION in the Amendment the author of the sentence is talking about, and to which he goes on to say,"... but will include every other class of persons."

The author of Amendment XIV sets out the two classes of people, to which the first clause of the first Section applies and do not apply in that sentence you quoted! The children born in the US, the foreigners, aliens to those in diplomatic service to another Nation is the first class which is excluded and all other children born in the US and to those children born in the US to all other parents NOT in diplomatic service in the second class! You cited the author's declaration so you live with the meaning as the author intended. A comma is shorthand for "OR"? That is utterly laughable! Your damn dog must've eaten your homework daily for however long you were in school!

For your edification...
From Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary:

obtuse -
1. .....
2. a: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid
b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

You haven't explained anything. I'm not reading it incorrectly. What you continue to want to do is dissect sentences to make them mean what you want them to mean. You claim the author of the 14th was being "declarative" when he said "..who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of diplomats." I disagree. There is no need to declare ambassadors and foreign ministers are foreigners and aliens...this is redundant information. Anyone with a brain greater than Terri Schiavo understands a foreign minister is foreign! -- Furthermore, there is a clear distinction made here between a "foreigner" and an "alien" and you also want to ignore that.

So don't lecture me and tell me I have to live with YOUR interpretation of what he meant. I don't have to live with ANYTHING your moronic ass claims.. .EVER!

If the statement wasn't declarative, what the Hell was it? You brought it up, you do not wish to admit the statement's actual intent. You truncated part of the sentence to make it appear a fallacious argument. Does the full context of your sentence fragment, "..who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of diplomats." match that of the the full quote? HELL NO!

The "who" at the lead of that sentence fragment refers to the "persons born in the United States" not their parents who are foreign nationals and should be read, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong...." It's the persons born in the US not the diplomatic parents you dolt! The sentence identifies by declaration WHO is excluded and those exclusions are the children born in the US of diplomatic types accredited, i.e. officially recognized by the United States, all others notwithstanding!

The children are being declared, by the author of the Amendment, to be a separate class of foreign aliens who would NOT be considered for birthright citizenship. It is an OBVIOUS given that the parents, being on a diplomatic mission from another Nation would be foreign aliens by definition. No redundancy exists in that entire sentence. Get used to it and LIVE WITH IT!

And thank you for playing "Let's Challenge Reality!"

Madison defined the difference between foreign and alien in 1789. The use in the amendment is not redundant. The definition has been ignored and changed over time, but in the 18th and 19th centuries the meanings were distinctly different. It is obvious that the 14th Amendment recognizes the Madison definitions.

scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1370&context=bjil

 

[Syriusly]

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Birthright Citizenship 091509.pdf

Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment

These proposals raise serious constitutional questions, however. Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. That birthright is protected no less for children of undocumented persons than for descendants of Mayflower passengers.