Moonglow
Diamond Member
you poh white nativist are sure trying to ruin our heritage.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All you are giving me is the personal opinions of 5-7 individuals that rule over 350 million AmericansNo, says the Supreme Court. That trumps your Fox News propagandists.
Although the holding in Wong Kim Ark does not directly address children born to undocumented persons, any confusion on this issue was addressed in Plyler v. Doe (1982). The Supreme Court in Plyler also interpreted the relevance of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, rather than the Citizenship Clause. The Equal Protection Clause requires every state to afford equal protection of the laws “to any person within its jurisdiction.” The Court held in a 5-4 vote that Texas could not deny free public-school education to undocumented children.
However, the Citizenship Clause was still directly relevant to the Court’s holding in Plyler. Despite the 5-4 decision, all nine justices agreed that the Equal Protection Clause protects legal and illegal aliens alike. Importantly, all nine justices reached this conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens. In the majority opinion, Justice William Brennan explicitly rejected the contention that undocumented persons are not within the jurisdiction of the United States. Justice Brennan specifically cited the Citizenship Clause and the holding in Wong Kim Ark in reaching this conclusion. Therefore, when combined with the holding in Wong Kim Ark, the holding in Plyler confirms that undocumented persons are subject to U.S. jurisdiction under the Citizenship Clause, and therefore their children become United States citizens. These holdings continue to be good law to this day.
![]()
Birthright Citizenship: A Core Tenet of American Liberty - Niskanen Center
Birthright citizenship is a strength, rather than a weakness, of the American immigration system, encouraging assimilation by allowing children of immigrants to participate in the life of their country as citizens.www.niskanencenter.org
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
You can't change the constitution with a pen."... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."
John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment, remarks on the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” as it appears in the amendment:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (March 9th,1866)
FACT: Congress has not exercised its Section 5 authority adopting appropriate legislation under the 14th Amendment granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.
“Without the enforcement clause, the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment would be moot. This clause gives Congress the power to pass legislation with the goal of enforcing the Amendment. As a result, Congress has used this clause to ensure all Americans enjoy the rights outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment.” SOURCE
FACT: In 1924, Congress exercised its authority and adopted appropriate legislation extending birth right citizenship to Indians by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924
FACT: To date there is no appropriate legislation or statutory law adopted by Congress granting citizenship to a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national.
FACT: Today nothing more than unwritten policy recognizes them as citizens upon birth.
FACT: The good news is, Trump can change that policy with a stroke of his pen.
See: Here’s how Pres. Trump can end Birthright Citizenship… scroll to “Using Administrative Authority”.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
You can't change the constitution with a pen.
The constitution isn't policy.Policy can be changed, and Trump most certainly will change the nitwitted anchor baby crap.
Policy can be changed, and Trump most certainly will change the nitwitted anchor baby crap.
The 14th Amendment decides.All you are giving me is the personal opinions of 5-7 individuals that rule over 350 million Americans
Instead of letting Congress decide you turned the problem over to 5 strangers
And who decides what the 14th Amendment says?The 14th Amendment decides.
And I gave you the intention of the author of the 14th Amendment.
Trump can't do jack shit.
According to you.
...
And the reality is:According to reality.
All bullshitAnd the reality is:
FACT: Congress has not exercised its Section 5 authority adopting appropriate legislation under the 14th Amendment granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.
“Without the enforcement clause, the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment would be moot. This clause gives Congress the power to pass legislation with the goal of enforcing the Amendment. As a result, Congress has used this clause to ensure all Americans enjoy the rights outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment.” SOURCE
FACT: In 1924, Congress exercised its authority and adopted appropriate legislation extending birth right citizenship to Indians by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924
FACT: To date there is no appropriate legislation or statutory law adopted by Congress granting citizenship to a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national.
FACT: Today nothing more than unwritten policy recognizes them as citizens upon birth.
FACT: The good news is, Trump can change that policy with a stroke of his pen.
See: Here’s how Pres. Trump can end Birthright Citizenship… scroll to “Using Administrative Authority”.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Here is the Congressional Record: https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif
The sponsor of the 14th amendment (Jacob Howard) made it crystal clear that birthright citizenship was for everyone, excluding the children of foreign ministers and ambassadors for obvious reasons.
"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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."
Trump can't do jack shit about it.
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,
And the reality is:
...
you can read United States v. Wong Kim Ark - WikipediaWell, something has to be done. Here's what's happening folks, the democrats are relying on the emotions of people saying "(gasp) you can't separate families! That's terrible, and you can deport citizens either, that's equally terrible!!" So what's left is illegals running across the border, giving birth, and hence the term "anchor baby" is born. That's not a bad word, it's just what it is.
Finding a loophole in the law is no excuse for breaking the law, and the continued breaking of the law.
So, "subject to the jurisdiction of" needs to be defined once and for all, because I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean "an exemption to our immigration laws and sovereign borders"
you can read United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
in the link embedded in the link
And why do you mention this to me?The reality is that having a US citizen child does NOT alter a parent's immigration status,
.In a decision on Bourfa v. Mayorkas, the court unanimously affirmed the secretary’s discretion to cancel approved immigration petitions “for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause” under 8 United States Code (USC) §1155, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivering the court’s opinion.
In a 12-page unanimous decision written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court ruled in Bouarfa v. Mayorkas that Congress granted under 8 U.S.C. §1154(b) the DHS Secretary “broad authority to revoke an approved visa petition at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause.” Such a revocation, Jackson wrote, is thus "in the discretion of " the agency and Section 1252 of the Immigration and Nationality Act “bars judicial review of