A Short Primer on the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment

[SweetTea]

Their discussion has no bearing on the words that were ratified by the states. They could have talked until they blue in the face that the moon was made of green cheese, but they didn't put that in the amendment, did they?

Illegals weren’t mentioned because they didn’t really exist in the 1860s. The 2nd Ammendment doesn’t explicitly mention automatic weapons and yet we can’t have them. Interpretations of 160+ year old documents must be revisited on occasion.

 

[pknopp]

Illegals weren’t mentioned because they didn’t really exist in the 1860s. The 2nd Ammendment doesn’t explicitly mention automatic weapons and yet we can’t have them. Interpretations of 160+ year old documents must be revisited on occasion.

So you support gun control?

 

[SweetTea]

So you support gun control?

No, I am merely pointing out that obviously we have interpreted amendments before.

Are you not in favor of any gun control?

 

[pknopp]

No, I am merely pointing out that obviously we have interpreted amendments before.

Are you not in favor of any gun control?

None at all not implemented individually through due process.

So much hypocrisy. Its wrong for judges to "interpret" something not there until you want them to interpret something not there.

 

[SweetTea]

None at all not implemented individually through due process.

So much hypocrisy. Its wrong for judges to "interpret" something not there until you want them to interpret something not there.

I will ask again. Why do you want vacationers and children born to illegals who snuck across our border to be citizens? If we had to amend the 14th in exclude those born from illegals, why would so many on the left be opposed to doing so? That is what I don’t understand.

 

[rightwinger]

I will ask again. Why do you want vacationers and children born to illegals who snuck across our border to be citizens? If we had to amend the 14th in exclude those born from illegals, why would so many on the left be opposed to doing so? That is what I don’t understand.

Those who hate immigrants are welcome to Amend the Constitution

Executive Order doesn’t pass muster

 

[SweetTea]

Those who hate immigrants are welcome to Amend the Constitution

Executive Order doesn’t pass muster

It has noting to do with hating immigrants.. It has to do with protecting our sovereignty. My wife is an immigrant, but a legal one. Why would you be ok with anyone just walking across our border unchecked?

 

[pknopp]

I will ask again. Why do you want vacationers and children born to illegals who snuck across our border to be citizens?

Because that's the law. I've answered this many times.

If we had to amend the 14th in exclude those born from illegals, why would so many on the left be opposed to doing so? That is what I don’t understand.

I can't speak for the "left".

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Illegals weren’t mentioned because they didn’t really exist in the 1860s. The 2nd Ammendment doesn’t explicitly mention automatic weapons and yet we can’t have them. Interpretations of 160+ year old documents must be revisited on occasion.

Correct. They must be amended when revisited, not reinterpreted. Like most people, I have no problem with passing an amendment to clarify citizenship. I just believe the wording as it stands is perfectly clear, despite opinions to the contrary.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It has noting to do with hating immigrants.. It has to do with protecting our sovereignty. My wife is an immigrant, but a legal one. Why would you be ok with anyone just walking across our border unchecked?

Walking across the border has nothing to do with people who are born here. It is a long term after effect.

 

[rightwinger]

It has noting to do with hating immigrants.. It has to do with protecting our sovereignty. My wife is an immigrant, but a legal one. Why would you be ok with anyone just walking across our border unchecked?

Notice how MAGA didn’t oppose Trump welcoming white S African refugees fleeing violence?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

PS Wong Kim Ark's parents were legal resident aliens, thus making themselves subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Wrong on Wong.
You see, there was no such thing as a 'legal resident alien' at that time...or, more to the point, no such thing as an illegal alien--unless, of course, you were Chinese.
The distinction twixt legal and illegal did not exist--unless you were an Asian ..there were no passports, no green cards and very few rules in 1898.

Not to mention that Wong was Chinese...and his parents probably were illegal..under the Chinese Exclusion Act.

History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

During the 18th and most of the 19th centuries, the United States had limited regulation of immigration and naturalization at a national level. Under a mostly prevailing "open border" policy, immigration was generally welcomed, although citizenship was limited to "white persons" as of 1790, and naturalization was subject to five-year residency requirement as of 1802. Passports and visas were not required for entry into America; rules and procedures for arriving immigrants were determined by local ports of entry or state laws. Processes for naturalization were determined by local county courts.<a href="History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States - Wikipedia">"History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States - Wikipedia">\"History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States - Wikipedia"

In the course of the late 1800s and early 1900s, many policies regarding immigration and naturalization were shifted in stages to a national level through court rulings giving primacy to federal authority over immigration policy, and the Immigration Act of 1891. The Immigration Act of 1891 led to the establishment of the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and the opening of the Ellis Island inspection station in 1892. Constitutional authority (Article 1 §8) was later relied upon to enact the Naturalization Act of 1906 which standardized procedures for naturalization nationwide, and created the Bureau of Naturalization (initially joined with the Bureau of Immigration; later from 1933 to 2003, both functions were part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service).<a href="History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States - Wikipedia">"History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States - Wikipedia">

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I will ask again. Why do you want vacationers and children born to illegals who snuck across our border to be citizens? If we had to amend the 14th in exclude those born from illegals, why would so many on the left be opposed to doing so? That is what I don’t understand.

What you don't understand is that it's a constitutional amendment.
Simple as that.
If you don't like it..change the amendment.

 

[SweetTea]

Notice how MAGA didn’t oppose Trump welcoming white S Africans fleeing violence?

Did they sneak across our border?

 

[rightwinger]

Did they sneak across our border?

Refugees seek asylum
Millions of “brown” refugees came to our border

Trump has no problem admitting white refugees

 

[SweetTea]

Walking across the border has nothing to do with people who are born here. It is a long term after effect.

Of course it does. If a pregnant woman walks across our border and has a baby that baby is a citizen. If a pregnant lady flies here on vacation and has a baby, that baby is a citizen. That was not the original intent.
Why can't we have automatic weapons? They were never explicitly excluded in the Second Amendment

Refugees seek asylum
Millions of “brown” refugees came to our border

Trump has no problem admitting white refugees

And many didn't follow the rules.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Of course it does. If a pregnant woman walks across our border and has a baby that baby is a citizen. If a pregnant lady flies here on vacation and has a baby, that baby is a citizen. That was not the original intent.
Why can't we have automatic weapons? They were never explicitly excluded in the Second Amendment

I addressed the first part in my comment which you obviously did not read. I said, "It is a long term after effect." The mother doesn't become a citizen.

As for automatic weapons, you can have them legally. You just have to jump through hoops. Didn't you know that?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Illegals weren’t mentioned because they didn’t really exist in the 1860s. The 2nd Ammendment doesn’t explicitly mention automatic weapons and yet we can’t have them. Interpretations of 160+ year old documents must be revisited on occasion.

Cool beans.
So you believe in the 'Living document' school of thought--as regards the Constitution.
How liberal of you~

 

[ThisIsMe]

Their discussion has no bearing on the words that were ratified by the states. They could have talked until they blue in the face that the moon was made of green cheese, but they didn't put that in the amendment, did they?

Then I guess you all need to stop your anti gun positions

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Jurisprudence Fee Press And Public At Large Learned Helplessness From Manifest Ignorance "

* Pay Attention Illiterate Numb Skulls *

PS Wong Kim Ark's parents were legal resident aliens, thus making themselves subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The correct and accurate description is that the parents of kim wong ark were subjects by title in us legal immigration system and they were therefore subjects of us jurisdiction .

Any within the domain of authority , by us magistrates , are subject to us jurisdiction , however unless an individual is a subject by title in us legal immigration system , or has negotiated an exception from prosecution as a diplomat via us legal immigration system , then the individual would not be a subject OF us jurisdiction .

The sub-genius level of understanding for the term " thereof " in us 14th amendment is despicable .

. Zone1 - Civis Etas Unis Sum And Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof Clause From Us 14th Amendment .