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

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It should be interpreted to mean born of legal parents, but I am not sure they will do it. Common sense tells you that their intent was not for what is going on now to be the law of the land.

My question is why are Democrats so hell bent on keeping the current interpretation? They think it is good that anybody can come to the US, legally or illegally, and have a baby that is a citizen?

Votes

 

[rightwinger]

Obviously you do not understand that the 14th amendment was created for the freed slaves and not for foreign citizens who illegally crossed our border.

The 13th and15th specifically mention slaves and former slaves
The 14th applies to all persons

They knew what they were writing

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

In

The 13th and15th specifically mention slaves and former slaves
The 14th applies to all persons

They knew what they were writing

Key words: context and intent
The 14th amendment was created for emancipated slaves.
It was not created for foreign citizens who illegally crossed our border.

 

[rightwinger]

In

Key words: context and intent
The 14th amendment was created for emancipated slaves.
It was not created for foreign citizens who illegally crossed our border.

They understood the English Language
If they meant slaves, they would have said so
Like they did in the 13th and 15th

 

[excalibur]

Not true! Look at the year of this court case...decided before the 14th amendment was written... Jus Soli, born on our soil, made one a citizen, with few exceptions



"Though born within our territorial limits, the Indians are considered as born under the jurisdiction of their tribes."

That is precisely the situation with an illegal alien who brings forth a child in the territory of the United States. That woman was born under the jurisdiction of her native country.

 

[excalibur]

There was no such thing as an illegal alien in the 1870s.

Semantics.

Facts.

The term "illegal alien" as it's used today, with its specific legal definition, emerged later. However, the concept of individuals violating immigration laws and regulations was present. ​

illegal aliesn in the 19th century - Google Search

 

[SweetTea]

The 13th and15th specifically mention slaves and former slaves
The 14th applies to all persons

They knew what they were writing

All persons at that time didn't take into account illegals. Sorry.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Semantics.

Facts.

​

The term "illegal alien" as it's used today, with its specific legal definition, emerged later. However, the concept of individuals violating immigration laws and regulations was present. ​

illegal aliesn in the 19th century - Google Search

There were very little immigration laws. The Kim Wond Ark case involved the Chinese Exclusion Act which was notably after the Civil War and 14th Amendment was ratified.

Your ignorance of history is not justification for your error.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

All persons at that time didn't take into account illegals. Sorry.

So now we can just assume that it does. Right!

 

[excalibur]

There were very little immigration laws. The Kim Wond Ark case involved the Chinese Exclusion Act which was notably after the Civil War and 14th Amendment was ratified.

Your ignorance of history is not justification for your error.

I made no error.

And saying 'there were very few immigration laws' is meaningless, as such laws existed, contra your original insistence. They may not have used the precise term "illegal alien", but that was the intent of the laws that did exist.

Indeed, not until the Supreme Court decreed in 1875 that immigration was a Federal matter alone, many states had immigration laws.

Wong Kim Ark pertained to a child born of LEGAL resident aliens.

 

[SweetTea]

So now we can just assume that it does. Right!

Maybe, that is up to the court to decide. I say yes because it is hard to imagine that anyone, other than an illegal, would write the law today to include them. Common sense goes a long way.

 

[rightwinger]

All persons at that time didn't take into account illegals. Sorry.

All persons
Sorry

 

[ThisIsMe]

On the EO but on being able to operate despite a lower court ruling? They may throw him a bone there.

But still, that is all still temporary.

Isn't the next case next week? I thought I heard the date of the 22nd.

I was curious why they decided to argue the damages first instead of just arguing whether it constitutional or not. Just get that out of the way and you've solved the whole problem.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Dealt with the child of legal resident aliens.

Right, but it was the first ruling on BRC by the scotus.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nope. Exactly the same meaning.

Not really. It can mean law, but it can also mean territorial boundaries.

In the debates over the amendment, they seem to indicate the latter.

 

[excalibur]

Right, but it was the first ruling on BRC by the scotus.

But it wasn't, Elk v. Wilkins predates it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Wrong. Just plain wrong.

I invite you to read the following:

Birthright Citizenship: A Response to My Critics - Claremont Review of Books

claremontreviewofbooks.com

And give me your response. This writer actually quotes the senators own words when they were debating.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I invite you to read the following:

Birthright Citizenship: A Response to My Critics - Claremont Review of Books

claremontreviewofbooks.com

And give me your response. This writer actually quotes the senators own words when they were debating.

Who cares? The wording is what it is!

 

[ThisIsMe]

Who cares? The wording is what it is!

correct, the people who wrote and passed the amendment explained the reasons for it. Illegal immigrants weren't it.

Read the link

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

correct, the people who wrote and passed the amendment explained the reasons for it. Illegal immigrants weren't it.

Read the link

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?