Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Boss]

Nothing in the Constitution allows people not subject to jurisdiction the right to bestow citizenship. It may be granted as a matter of statutory policy, I can't argue that. Our current statutory policy allows it, that doesn't mean it's a constitutional right of the 14th.

you keep repeating objectively false things. The 14th defines a citizen as someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I suspect you are smart enough to know what "born in the United States" means. In case you are not, it means within one of the states; physically in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Not in a territory and not in Indian tribal lands . Subject to the jurisdiction mean subject to the laws of the U.S. Thus, diplomats and invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction. Children born here to parents not her as diplomats, are subject to the jurisdiction. That is why the 800 or so babies born today to parents here illegally will be citizens, regardless of what you think..

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry.

"Subject to jurisdiction" doesn't mean "subject to US laws" and it's kind of silly... if you are IN the US, you ARE subject to the laws of the US. And US laws don't apply anywhere but in the US. So to say "in the US and subject to the laws of the US" is redundant. And diplomats ARE subject to US laws.. they can't be prosecuted, but they are still subject to the law. Breaking the law, especially if it's intentional, can result in expulsion or the home country waiving diplomatic immunity. Diplomats are still expected to obey all US laws while in our country.

If you bother to read the history behind the 14th and what was debated in structuring the language, you will understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" does not refer to geography. It is referring to allegiance owed. This is repeated over and over in every one of the case law examples you guys are throwing up.

But here is what has happened... Some pinhead on MSNBC has told you that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, and that's what you believe. You see other pinheads here defending it so you assume it must be correct. When an "evil con" tries to have a rational conversation with you about what the Constitution actually says and how this all works, you reject it because you're trained like a seal to bark the lines you've been taught.

This is an enumerated power of Congress. If illegal alien babies are being born today and becoming citizens it's because of statutory policy which allows it, or in Obama's case, ignores it. This is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution or the 14th Amendment. Congress has plenary power.

You are an idiot. You repeat the same nonsense and each time you do you remain an idiot.

All I've repeated is the Constitution and what it says. You can research the meaning of "subject to jurisdiction in the 14th amendment" and find plenty of resource material to explain it to you... avoid liberal biased sources with opinions of what it means, and stick with historical fact-based sources. If you do that, you'll discover that it doesn't mean "geographical jurisdiction" at all, if it did... you would have American citizen soldiers and their wives stationed in Honduras having babies that weren't US citizens because they weren't born in the right geographical jurisdiction.

So it simply cannot mean what you keep interpreting.

 

[Syriusly]

You take the "philosophical leap of faith" because I'm sure as Hell am not going to sign on to, "... the point that a baby doesn't have the capacity or obligation to declare allegiance to anything, therefore, must be assumed to be "subject to jurisdiction" by default." That is not fucking the case, IDIOT. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP is the case because citizenship DOES NOT DESCEND TO THE CHILD FROM THE PARENTS as I presented to you on at least two separate occasions!!!! The USA is not a fiefdom or a kingdom as it was across Europe back in the day.

No... It's a REPUBLIC with a CONSTITUTION. That Constitution says:
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4:
[The Congress shall have Power To] establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

It doesn't say we're a fiefdom or kingdom where alien babies determine their own citizenship by being born on US soil. It doesn't say illegal alien parents get to decide citizenship based on the geographical location they decide to deliver their rug rat. It doesn't say a stacked liberal nutjob court gets to rewrite the Constitution and decide who is a citizen. And it doesn't say some half-wit moron on a message board gets to dictate who he thinks ought to get citizenship.

This is a plenary and enumerated power of Congress and Congress alone. It's IN the Constitution. It's also IN the 14th Amendment- Section 5.

Hmmm that says 'Naturalization'- which does not apply to Americans who are born citizens according to the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Nothing in the Constitution allows people not subject to jurisdiction the right to bestow citizenship. It may be granted as a matter of statutory policy, I can't argue that. Our current statutory policy allows it, that doesn't mean it's a constitutional right of the 14th.

you keep repeating objectively false things. The 14th defines a citizen as someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I suspect you are smart enough to know what "born in the United States" means. In case you are not, it means within one of the states; physically in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Not in a territory and not in Indian tribal lands . Subject to the jurisdiction mean subject to the laws of the U.S. Thus, diplomats and invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction. Children born here to parents not her as diplomats, are subject to the jurisdiction. That is why the 800 or so babies born today to parents here illegally will be citizens, regardless of what you think..

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry......

What law school did you say you graduated from?

I minored in American History at the University of Alabama. It doesn't require a law degree to understand the history of the Constitution and 14th Amendment.

You keep demonstrating that a minor in American History doesn't help you much.

 

[Syriusly]

Nothing in the Constitution allows people not subject to jurisdiction the right to bestow citizenship. It may be granted as a matter of statutory policy, I can't argue that. Our current statutory policy allows it, that doesn't mean it's a constitutional right of the 14th.

you keep repeating objectively false things. The 14th defines a citizen as someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I suspect you are smart enough to know what "born in the United States" means. In case you are not, it means within one of the states; physically in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Not in a territory and not in Indian tribal lands . Subject to the jurisdiction mean subject to the laws of the U.S. Thus, diplomats and invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction. Children born here to parents not her as diplomats, are subject to the jurisdiction. That is why the 800 or so babies born today to parents here illegally will be citizens, regardless of what you think..

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry.

"Subject to jurisdiction" doesn't mean "subject to US laws" and it's kind of silly... if you are IN the US, you ARE subject to the laws of the US. And US laws don't apply anywhere but in the US. So to say "in the US and subject to the laws of the US" is redundant. And diplomats ARE subject to US laws.. they can't be prosecuted, but they are still subject to the law. Breaking the law, especially if it's intentional, can result in expulsion or the home country waiving diplomatic immunity. Diplomats are still expected to obey all US laws while in our country.

If you bother to read the history behind the 14th and what was debated in structuring the language, you will understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" does not refer to geography. It is referring to allegiance owed. This is repeated over and over in every one of the case law examples you guys are throwing up.

But here is what has happened... Some pinhead on MSNBC has told you that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, and that's what you believe. You see other pinheads here defending it so you assume it must be correct. When an "evil con" tries to have a rational conversation with you about what the Constitution actually says and how this all works, you reject it because you're trained like a seal to bark the lines you've been taught.

This is an enumerated power of Congress. If illegal alien babies are being born today and becoming citizens it's because of statutory policy which allows it, or in Obama's case, ignores it. This is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution or the 14th Amendment. Congress has plenary power.

You are an idiot. You repeat the same nonsense and each time you do you remain an idiot.

All I've repeated is the Constitution and what it says. You can research the meaning of "subject to jurisdiction in the 14th amendment" and find plenty of resource material to explain it to you... avoid liberal biased sources with opinions of what it means, and stick with historical fact-based sources. If you do that, you'll discover that it doesn't mean "geographical jurisdiction" at all, if it did... you would have American citizen soldiers and their wives stationed in Honduras having babies that weren't US citizens because they weren't born in the right geographical jurisdiction.

So it simply cannot mean what you keep interpreting.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Children born in Honduras to American citizen soldiers are not born U.S. citizens based upon the 14th Amendment- because- of course- they are not born in the United States.

They are born U.S. citizens based upon being born to U.S. citizens

As the court noted in Wong Kim Ark- jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment means the same thing in the first section.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And therefore- according to the Constitution is a U.S. citizen.

 

[Syriusly]

You take the "philosophical leap of faith" because I'm sure as Hell am not going to sign on to, "... the point that a baby doesn't have the capacity or obligation to declare allegiance to anything, therefore, must be assumed to be "subject to jurisdiction" by default." That is not fucking the case, IDIOT. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP is the case because citizenship DOES NOT DESCEND TO THE CHILD FROM THE PARENTS as I presented to you on at least two separate occasions!!!! The USA is not a fiefdom or a kingdom as it was across Europe back in the day.

No... It's a REPUBLIC with a CONSTITUTION. That Constitution says:
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4:
[The Congress shall have Power To] establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

Let's read it again so you clearly understand...
[The Congress (not anchor babies, illegal alien parents or courts) shall have Power To] establish an uniform Rule (aka: laws) of Naturalization (aka:citizenship).

This is a plenary and enumerated power of Congress and Congress alone. It's IN the Constitution. It's also IN the 14th Amendment- Section 5.

Naturalization is not aka citizenship.

There are two kinds of citizenship mentioned in the Constitution- 'natural born'- i.e. anyone born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction- and 'naturalized'- made citizens by act of Congress.

 

[Unkotare]

Nothing in the Constitution allows people not subject to jurisdiction the right to bestow citizenship. It may be granted as a matter of statutory policy, I can't argue that. Our current statutory policy allows it, that doesn't mean it's a constitutional right of the 14th.

you keep repeating objectively false things. The 14th defines a citizen as someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I suspect you are smart enough to know what "born in the United States" means. In case you are not, it means within one of the states; physically in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Not in a territory and not in Indian tribal lands . Subject to the jurisdiction mean subject to the laws of the U.S. Thus, diplomats and invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction. Children born here to parents not her as diplomats, are subject to the jurisdiction. That is why the 800 or so babies born today to parents here illegally will be citizens, regardless of what you think..

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry......

What law school did you say you graduated from?

I minored in American History at the University of Alabama. .

Holy shit! "minored in American History at the University of Alabama"? What a world-class expert! What an unimpeachable source!

 

[paddymurphy]

Nothing in the Constitution allows people not subject to jurisdiction the right to bestow citizenship. It may be granted as a matter of statutory policy, I can't argue that. Our current statutory policy allows it, that doesn't mean it's a constitutional right of the 14th.

you keep repeating objectively false things. The 14th defines a citizen as someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I suspect you are smart enough to know what "born in the United States" means. In case you are not, it means within one of the states; physically in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Not in a territory and not in Indian tribal lands . Subject to the jurisdiction mean subject to the laws of the U.S. Thus, diplomats and invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction. Children born here to parents not her as diplomats, are subject to the jurisdiction. That is why the 800 or so babies born today to parents here illegally will be citizens, regardless of what you think..

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry.

"Subject to jurisdiction" doesn't mean "subject to US laws" and it's kind of silly... if you are IN the US, you ARE subject to the laws of the US. And US laws don't apply anywhere but in the US. So to say "in the US and subject to the laws of the US" is redundant. And diplomats ARE subject to US laws.. they can't be prosecuted, but they are still subject to the law. Breaking the law, especially if it's intentional, can result in expulsion or the home country waiving diplomatic immunity. Diplomats are still expected to obey all US laws while in our country.

If you bother to read the history behind the 14th and what was debated in structuring the language, you will understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" does not refer to geography. It is referring to allegiance owed. This is repeated over and over in every one of the case law examples you guys are throwing up.

But here is what has happened... Some pinhead on MSNBC has told you that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, and that's what you believe. You see other pinheads here defending it so you assume it must be correct. When an "evil con" tries to have a rational conversation with you about what the Constitution actually says and how this all works, you reject it because you're trained like a seal to bark the lines you've been taught.

This is an enumerated power of Congress. If illegal alien babies are being born today and becoming citizens it's because of statutory policy which allows it, or in Obama's case, ignores it. This is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution or the 14th Amendment. Congress has plenary power.

You are an idiot. You repeat the same nonsense and each time you do you remain an idiot.

All I've repeated is the Constitution and what it says. You can research the meaning of "subject to jurisdiction in the 14th amendment" and find plenty of resource material to explain it to you... avoid liberal biased sources with opinions of what it means, and stick with historical fact-based sources. If you do that, you'll discover that it doesn't mean "geographical jurisdiction" at all, if it did... you would have American citizen soldiers and their wives stationed in Honduras having babies that weren't US citizens because they weren't born in the right geographical jurisdiction.

So it simply cannot mean what you keep interpreting.

The only source that matters is the Supreme Court and they have clearly determined what the language means.

 

[Boss]

The only source that matters is the Supreme Court...

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4... Not true.

 

[Boss]

Naturalization is not aka citizenship.

There are two kinds of citizenship mentioned in the Constitution- 'natural born'- i.e. anyone born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction- and 'naturalized'- made citizens by act of Congress.

No, there is only one kind of citizenship. The kind Congress has defined by statute. Naturalization is the process by which a foreigner becomes a citizen. Nothing in the Constitution or the 14th, circumvents Congressional plenary power. In fact, Section 6 of the 14th specifically delegates Congress to legislate any aspect of the amendment. This is why SCOTUS could not use the 14th to confer birthright citizenship on Native Americans. It took an act of Congress.

 

[Boss]

What law school did you say you graduated from?

I minored in American History at the University of Alabama.

Holy shit! "minored in American History at the University of Alabama"? What a world-class expert! What an unimpeachable source!

And where was your Constitutional Law degree from again?

 

[Boss]

Nothing in the Constitution allows people not subject to jurisdiction the right to bestow citizenship. It may be granted as a matter of statutory policy, I can't argue that. Our current statutory policy allows it, that doesn't mean it's a constitutional right of the 14th.

you keep repeating objectively false things. The 14th defines a citizen as someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I suspect you are smart enough to know what "born in the United States" means. In case you are not, it means within one of the states; physically in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Not in a territory and not in Indian tribal lands . Subject to the jurisdiction mean subject to the laws of the U.S. Thus, diplomats and invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction. Children born here to parents not her as diplomats, are subject to the jurisdiction. That is why the 800 or so babies born today to parents here illegally will be citizens, regardless of what you think..

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry.

"Subject to jurisdiction" doesn't mean "subject to US laws" and it's kind of silly... if you are IN the US, you ARE subject to the laws of the US. And US laws don't apply anywhere but in the US. So to say "in the US and subject to the laws of the US" is redundant. And diplomats ARE subject to US laws.. they can't be prosecuted, but they are still subject to the law. Breaking the law, especially if it's intentional, can result in expulsion or the home country waiving diplomatic immunity. Diplomats are still expected to obey all US laws while in our country.

If you bother to read the history behind the 14th and what was debated in structuring the language, you will understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" does not refer to geography. It is referring to allegiance owed. This is repeated over and over in every one of the case law examples you guys are throwing up.

But here is what has happened... Some pinhead on MSNBC has told you that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, and that's what you believe. You see other pinheads here defending it so you assume it must be correct. When an "evil con" tries to have a rational conversation with you about what the Constitution actually says and how this all works, you reject it because you're trained like a seal to bark the lines you've been taught.

This is an enumerated power of Congress. If illegal alien babies are being born today and becoming citizens it's because of statutory policy which allows it, or in Obama's case, ignores it. This is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution or the 14th Amendment. Congress has plenary power.

You are an idiot. You repeat the same nonsense and each time you do you remain an idiot.

All I've repeated is the Constitution and what it says. You can research the meaning of "subject to jurisdiction in the 14th amendment" and find plenty of resource material to explain it to you... avoid liberal biased sources with opinions of what it means, and stick with historical fact-based sources. If you do that, you'll discover that it doesn't mean "geographical jurisdiction" at all, if it did... you would have American citizen soldiers and their wives stationed in Honduras having babies that weren't US citizens because they weren't born in the right geographical jurisdiction.

So it simply cannot mean what you keep interpreting.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Children born in Honduras to American citizen soldiers are not born U.S. citizens based upon the 14th Amendment- because- of course- they are not born in the United States.

They are born U.S. citizens based upon being born to U.S. citizens

As the court noted in Wong Kim Ark- jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment means the same thing in the first section.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And therefore- according to the Constitution is a U.S. citizen.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Correct. And my argument remains, children of two foreign born parents in our country illegally, are not "subject to jurisdiction" and do not qualify. You argue that "subject to jurisdiction" essentially means the same as "within the jurisdiction of law." As of yet, you've posted no finding from any court or argument from any legitimate scholar that the Constitution says what you claim.

You continue to cite irrelevant cases. Wong Kim Ark was regarding LEGAL immigrants and not illegal aliens. A specific distinction that was actually made in the argument for Wong. Even the fact that the Wong case exists is evidence the Constitution doesn't automatically grant birthright citizenship-- if it did, there would have been no case.

Plyler is about due process rights when you are within the legal jurisdiction of the US. And again, the existence of the case proves that this issue of "subject to jurisdiction" is not as easy-peasy cut and dry as you proclaim it to be.

So far-- NO ONE has offered a SCOTUS or case law example of "instant citizenship by birth" to illegal alien parents. All we have are your liberal opinions, which I am quite sure are shared by Justices Sotomayor, Kegan, Ginsberg and probably Bryer. I am sure that Scalia, Alito and Thomas disagree... Kennedy and Roberts? Who knows? If Roberts can find a way to rewrite the Constitution so that it fits the liberal narrative, he will do it.... we've seen that happen.

But even in the event SCOTUS should rule in such a case, the Congress retains plenary power because of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4, and the 14th Amendment Section 5. So ultimately, the decision rests with Congress, not SCOTUS.

 

[MathewSmith]

If one of the parents or both parents have American citizenship then a child should gain birth citizenship. If both parents are not American citizens then the child should not automatically gain American citizenship.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Amending the constitution is legal and the amendment is then constitutional. We could amend the constitution making a family of jack asses president of this country and it would be the law of the land.

 

[Unkotare]

What law school did you say you graduated from?

I minored in American History at the University of Alabama.

Holy shit! "minored in American History at the University of Alabama"? What a world-class expert! What an unimpeachable source!

And where was your Constitutional Law degree from again?

I don't have one, and I don't pretend to have one.



"...minored in..."

 

[Syriusly]

you keep repeating objectively false things. The 14th defines a citizen as someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I suspect you are smart enough to know what "born in the United States" means. In case you are not, it means within one of the states; physically in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Not in a territory and not in Indian tribal lands . Subject to the jurisdiction mean subject to the laws of the U.S. Thus, diplomats and invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction. Children born here to parents not her as diplomats, are subject to the jurisdiction. That is why the 800 or so babies born today to parents here illegally will be citizens, regardless of what you think..

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry.

"Subject to jurisdiction" doesn't mean "subject to US laws" and it's kind of silly... if you are IN the US, you ARE subject to the laws of the US. And US laws don't apply anywhere but in the US. So to say "in the US and subject to the laws of the US" is redundant. And diplomats ARE subject to US laws.. they can't be prosecuted, but they are still subject to the law. Breaking the law, especially if it's intentional, can result in expulsion or the home country waiving diplomatic immunity. Diplomats are still expected to obey all US laws while in our country.

If you bother to read the history behind the 14th and what was debated in structuring the language, you will understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" does not refer to geography. It is referring to allegiance owed. This is repeated over and over in every one of the case law examples you guys are throwing up.

But here is what has happened... Some pinhead on MSNBC has told you that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, and that's what you believe. You see other pinheads here defending it so you assume it must be correct. When an "evil con" tries to have a rational conversation with you about what the Constitution actually says and how this all works, you reject it because you're trained like a seal to bark the lines you've been taught.

This is an enumerated power of Congress. If illegal alien babies are being born today and becoming citizens it's because of statutory policy which allows it, or in Obama's case, ignores it. This is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution or the 14th Amendment. Congress has plenary power.

You are an idiot. You repeat the same nonsense and each time you do you remain an idiot.

All I've repeated is the Constitution and what it says. You can research the meaning of "subject to jurisdiction in the 14th amendment" and find plenty of resource material to explain it to you... avoid liberal biased sources with opinions of what it means, and stick with historical fact-based sources. If you do that, you'll discover that it doesn't mean "geographical jurisdiction" at all, if it did... you would have American citizen soldiers and their wives stationed in Honduras having babies that weren't US citizens because they weren't born in the right geographical jurisdiction.

So it simply cannot mean what you keep interpreting.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Children born in Honduras to American citizen soldiers are not born U.S. citizens based upon the 14th Amendment- because- of course- they are not born in the United States.

They are born U.S. citizens based upon being born to U.S. citizens

As the court noted in Wong Kim Ark- jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment means the same thing in the first section.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And therefore- according to the Constitution is a U.S. citizen.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Correct. And my argument remains, children of two foreign born parents in our country illegally, are not "subject to jurisdiction" and do not qualify. You argue that "subject to jurisdiction" essentially means the same as "within the jurisdiction of law." As of yet, you've posted no finding from any court or argument from any legitimate scholar that the Constitution says what you claim.

Actually I have posted Wong Kim Ark saying exactly that repeatedly.

I will repost what Wong Kim Ark said about 'jurisdiction' again- and you will ignore it- again

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Wong Kim Ark specifically stated that 'subject to the jurisdiction' means the same thing as 'within the jurisdiction' in the 14th Amendment

Plyler v. Doe stated that illegal aliens within the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Combine the two- and there is the complete validation of the actual accepted policy in effect today regarding a child born in the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

you keep repeating objectively false things. The 14th defines a citizen as someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I suspect you are smart enough to know what "born in the United States" means. In case you are not, it means within one of the states; physically in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Not in a territory and not in Indian tribal lands . Subject to the jurisdiction mean subject to the laws of the U.S. Thus, diplomats and invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction. Children born here to parents not her as diplomats, are subject to the jurisdiction. That is why the 800 or so babies born today to parents here illegally will be citizens, regardless of what you think..

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry.

"Subject to jurisdiction" doesn't mean "subject to US laws" and it's kind of silly... if you are IN the US, you ARE subject to the laws of the US. And US laws don't apply anywhere but in the US. So to say "in the US and subject to the laws of the US" is redundant. And diplomats ARE subject to US laws.. they can't be prosecuted, but they are still subject to the law. Breaking the law, especially if it's intentional, can result in expulsion or the home country waiving diplomatic immunity. Diplomats are still expected to obey all US laws while in our country.

If you bother to read the history behind the 14th and what was debated in structuring the language, you will understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" does not refer to geography. It is referring to allegiance owed. This is repeated over and over in every one of the case law examples you guys are throwing up.

But here is what has happened... Some pinhead on MSNBC has told you that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, and that's what you believe. You see other pinheads here defending it so you assume it must be correct. When an "evil con" tries to have a rational conversation with you about what the Constitution actually says and how this all works, you reject it because you're trained like a seal to bark the lines you've been taught.

This is an enumerated power of Congress. If illegal alien babies are being born today and becoming citizens it's because of statutory policy which allows it, or in Obama's case, ignores it. This is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution or the 14th Amendment. Congress has plenary power.

You are an idiot. You repeat the same nonsense and each time you do you remain an idiot.

All I've repeated is the Constitution and what it says. You can research the meaning of "subject to jurisdiction in the 14th amendment" and find plenty of resource material to explain it to you... avoid liberal biased sources with opinions of what it means, and stick with historical fact-based sources. If you do that, you'll discover that it doesn't mean "geographical jurisdiction" at all, if it did... you would have American citizen soldiers and their wives stationed in Honduras having babies that weren't US citizens because they weren't born in the right geographical jurisdiction.

So it simply cannot mean what you keep interpreting.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Children born in Honduras to American citizen soldiers are not born U.S. citizens based upon the 14th Amendment- because- of course- they are not born in the United States.

They are born U.S. citizens based upon being born to U.S. citizens

As the court noted in Wong Kim Ark- jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment means the same thing in the first section.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And therefore- according to the Constitution is a U.S. citizen.

You continue to cite irrelevant cases. Wong Kim Ark was regarding LEGAL immigrants and not illegal aliens. A specific distinction that was actually made in the argument for Wong. Even the fact that the Wong case exists is evidence the Constitution doesn't automatically grant birthright citizenship-- if it did, there would have been no case.

The 14th Amendment has two requirements for birthright citizenship- birth in the United States- and birth subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- meet those two requirements and citizenship is automatic at birth.

 

[Syriusly]

you keep repeating objectively false things. The 14th defines a citizen as someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I suspect you are smart enough to know what "born in the United States" means. In case you are not, it means within one of the states; physically in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Not in a territory and not in Indian tribal lands . Subject to the jurisdiction mean subject to the laws of the U.S. Thus, diplomats and invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction. Children born here to parents not her as diplomats, are subject to the jurisdiction. That is why the 800 or so babies born today to parents here illegally will be citizens, regardless of what you think..

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry.

"Subject to jurisdiction" doesn't mean "subject to US laws" and it's kind of silly... if you are IN the US, you ARE subject to the laws of the US. And US laws don't apply anywhere but in the US. So to say "in the US and subject to the laws of the US" is redundant. And diplomats ARE subject to US laws.. they can't be prosecuted, but they are still subject to the law. Breaking the law, especially if it's intentional, can result in expulsion or the home country waiving diplomatic immunity. Diplomats are still expected to obey all US laws while in our country.

If you bother to read the history behind the 14th and what was debated in structuring the language, you will understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" does not refer to geography. It is referring to allegiance owed. This is repeated over and over in every one of the case law examples you guys are throwing up.

But here is what has happened... Some pinhead on MSNBC has told you that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, and that's what you believe. You see other pinheads here defending it so you assume it must be correct. When an "evil con" tries to have a rational conversation with you about what the Constitution actually says and how this all works, you reject it because you're trained like a seal to bark the lines you've been taught.

This is an enumerated power of Congress. If illegal alien babies are being born today and becoming citizens it's because of statutory policy which allows it, or in Obama's case, ignores it. This is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution or the 14th Amendment. Congress has plenary power.

You are an idiot. You repeat the same nonsense and each time you do you remain an idiot.

All I've repeated is the Constitution and what it says. You can research the meaning of "subject to jurisdiction in the 14th amendment" and find plenty of resource material to explain it to you... avoid liberal biased sources with opinions of what it means, and stick with historical fact-based sources. If you do that, you'll discover that it doesn't mean "geographical jurisdiction" at all, if it did... you would have American citizen soldiers and their wives stationed in Honduras having babies that weren't US citizens because they weren't born in the right geographical jurisdiction.

So it simply cannot mean what you keep interpreting.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Children born in Honduras to American citizen soldiers are not born U.S. citizens based upon the 14th Amendment- because- of course- they are not born in the United States.

They are born U.S. citizens based upon being born to U.S. citizens

As the court noted in Wong Kim Ark- jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment means the same thing in the first section.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And therefore- according to the Constitution is a U.S. citizen.

So far-- NO ONE has offered a SCOTUS or case law example of "instant citizenship by birth" to illegal alien parents. All we have are your liberal opinions, which I am quite sure are shared by Justices Sotomayor, Kegan, Ginsberg and probably Bryer. I am sure that Scalia, Alito and Thomas disagree... Kennedy and Roberts? Who knows? If Roberts can find a way to rewrite the Constitution so that it fits the liberal narrative, he will do it.... we've seen that happen.

LOL- once again you are just wrong.

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.

 

[Syriusly]

you keep repeating objectively false things. The 14th defines a citizen as someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I suspect you are smart enough to know what "born in the United States" means. In case you are not, it means within one of the states; physically in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Not in a territory and not in Indian tribal lands . Subject to the jurisdiction mean subject to the laws of the U.S. Thus, diplomats and invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction. Children born here to parents not her as diplomats, are subject to the jurisdiction. That is why the 800 or so babies born today to parents here illegally will be citizens, regardless of what you think..

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry.

"Subject to jurisdiction" doesn't mean "subject to US laws" and it's kind of silly... if you are IN the US, you ARE subject to the laws of the US. And US laws don't apply anywhere but in the US. So to say "in the US and subject to the laws of the US" is redundant. And diplomats ARE subject to US laws.. they can't be prosecuted, but they are still subject to the law. Breaking the law, especially if it's intentional, can result in expulsion or the home country waiving diplomatic immunity. Diplomats are still expected to obey all US laws while in our country.

If you bother to read the history behind the 14th and what was debated in structuring the language, you will understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" does not refer to geography. It is referring to allegiance owed. This is repeated over and over in every one of the case law examples you guys are throwing up.

But here is what has happened... Some pinhead on MSNBC has told you that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, and that's what you believe. You see other pinheads here defending it so you assume it must be correct. When an "evil con" tries to have a rational conversation with you about what the Constitution actually says and how this all works, you reject it because you're trained like a seal to bark the lines you've been taught.

This is an enumerated power of Congress. If illegal alien babies are being born today and becoming citizens it's because of statutory policy which allows it, or in Obama's case, ignores it. This is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution or the 14th Amendment. Congress has plenary power.

You are an idiot. You repeat the same nonsense and each time you do you remain an idiot.

All I've repeated is the Constitution and what it says. You can research the meaning of "subject to jurisdiction in the 14th amendment" and find plenty of resource material to explain it to you... avoid liberal biased sources with opinions of what it means, and stick with historical fact-based sources. If you do that, you'll discover that it doesn't mean "geographical jurisdiction" at all, if it did... you would have American citizen soldiers and their wives stationed in Honduras having babies that weren't US citizens because they weren't born in the right geographical jurisdiction.

So it simply cannot mean what you keep interpreting.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Children born in Honduras to American citizen soldiers are not born U.S. citizens based upon the 14th Amendment- because- of course- they are not born in the United States.

They are born U.S. citizens based upon being born to U.S. citizens

As the court noted in Wong Kim Ark- jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment means the same thing in the first section.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And therefore- according to the Constitution is a U.S. citizen.

But even in the event SCOTUS should rule in such a case, the Congress retains plenary power because of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4, and the 14th Amendment Section 5. So ultimately, the decision rests with Congress, not SCOTUS.

Congress has no authority to change the interpretation of the Constitution.

None.

Congress can initiate a Constitutional Amendment-and that is it.

 

[Syriusly]

Naturalization is not aka citizenship.

There are two kinds of citizenship mentioned in the Constitution- 'natural born'- i.e. anyone born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction- and 'naturalized'- made citizens by act of Congress.

No, there is only one kind of citizenship. The kind Congress has defined by statute. Naturalization is the process by which a foreigner becomes a citizen. Nothing in the Constitution or the 14th, circumvents Congressional plenary power. In fact, Section 6 of the 14th specifically delegates Congress to legislate any aspect of the amendment. This is why SCOTUS could not use the 14th to confer birthright citizenship on Native Americans. It took an act of Congress.

There are two kinds of citizenship.

Natural Born citizen- as mentioned in the Constitution- and all others- which are Naturalized hence
Naturalized Citizens- Congress is given authority to create rules for Naturalization in the Constitution- but not rules for Natural Born Citizens.

Natural Born citizens can be elected President- and cannot have their citizenship stripped from them.
Naturalized citizens cannot be elected President- and can have their citizenship stripped from them.

This is really basic stuff.

The Supreme Court correctly interpreted the 14th Amendment as excluding who it did- which included at the time specific Native Americans. Congress passed a law changing the status of those Native Americans so that they fell under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment.

 

[paddymurphy]

you keep repeating objectively false things. The 14th defines a citizen as someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I suspect you are smart enough to know what "born in the United States" means. In case you are not, it means within one of the states; physically in the territorial boundaries of the nation. Not in a territory and not in Indian tribal lands . Subject to the jurisdiction mean subject to the laws of the U.S. Thus, diplomats and invading soldiers are not subject to the jurisdiction. Children born here to parents not her as diplomats, are subject to the jurisdiction. That is why the 800 or so babies born today to parents here illegally will be citizens, regardless of what you think..

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry.

"Subject to jurisdiction" doesn't mean "subject to US laws" and it's kind of silly... if you are IN the US, you ARE subject to the laws of the US. And US laws don't apply anywhere but in the US. So to say "in the US and subject to the laws of the US" is redundant. And diplomats ARE subject to US laws.. they can't be prosecuted, but they are still subject to the law. Breaking the law, especially if it's intentional, can result in expulsion or the home country waiving diplomatic immunity. Diplomats are still expected to obey all US laws while in our country.

If you bother to read the history behind the 14th and what was debated in structuring the language, you will understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" does not refer to geography. It is referring to allegiance owed. This is repeated over and over in every one of the case law examples you guys are throwing up.

But here is what has happened... Some pinhead on MSNBC has told you that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, and that's what you believe. You see other pinheads here defending it so you assume it must be correct. When an "evil con" tries to have a rational conversation with you about what the Constitution actually says and how this all works, you reject it because you're trained like a seal to bark the lines you've been taught.

This is an enumerated power of Congress. If illegal alien babies are being born today and becoming citizens it's because of statutory policy which allows it, or in Obama's case, ignores it. This is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution or the 14th Amendment. Congress has plenary power.

You are an idiot. You repeat the same nonsense and each time you do you remain an idiot.

All I've repeated is the Constitution and what it says. You can research the meaning of "subject to jurisdiction in the 14th amendment" and find plenty of resource material to explain it to you... avoid liberal biased sources with opinions of what it means, and stick with historical fact-based sources. If you do that, you'll discover that it doesn't mean "geographical jurisdiction" at all, if it did... you would have American citizen soldiers and their wives stationed in Honduras having babies that weren't US citizens because they weren't born in the right geographical jurisdiction.

So it simply cannot mean what you keep interpreting.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Children born in Honduras to American citizen soldiers are not born U.S. citizens based upon the 14th Amendment- because- of course- they are not born in the United States.

They are born U.S. citizens based upon being born to U.S. citizens

As the court noted in Wong Kim Ark- jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment means the same thing in the first section.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And therefore- according to the Constitution is a U.S. citizen.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Correct. And my argument remains, children of two foreign born parents in our country illegally, are not "subject to jurisdiction" and do not qualify. You argue that "subject to jurisdiction" essentially means the same as "within the jurisdiction of law." As of yet, you've posted no finding from any court or argument from any legitimate scholar that the Constitution says what you claim.

You continue to cite irrelevant cases. Wong Kim Ark was regarding LEGAL immigrants and not illegal aliens. A specific distinction that was actually made in the argument for Wong. Even the fact that the Wong case exists is evidence the Constitution doesn't automatically grant birthright citizenship-- if it did, there would have been no case.

Plyler is about due process rights when you are within the legal jurisdiction of the US. And again, the existence of the case proves that this issue of "subject to jurisdiction" is not as easy-peasy cut and dry as you proclaim it to be.

So far-- NO ONE has offered a SCOTUS or case law example of "instant citizenship by birth" to illegal alien parents. All we have are your liberal opinions, which I am quite sure are shared by Justices Sotomayor, Kegan, Ginsberg and probably Bryer. I am sure that Scalia, Alito and Thomas disagree... Kennedy and Roberts? Who knows? If Roberts can find a way to rewrite the Constitution so that it fits the liberal narrative, he will do it.... we've seen that happen.

But even in the event SCOTUS should rule in such a case, the Congress retains plenary power because of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4, and the 14th Amendment Section 5. So ultimately, the decision rests with Congress, not SCOTUS.

You keep posting this lie. I and syriusly have repeatedly posted the language from Wong Kim Ark that says precisely this. "You argue that "subject to jurisdiction" essentially means the same as "within the jurisdiction of law." As of yet, you've posted no finding from any court or argument from any legitimate scholar that the Constitution says what you claim.