"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[protectionist]

We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.

Mark

Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.

All that is needed is a repeat of Operation Wetback.

That works for sending illegal aliens back, but they are whining about so called anchor babies- i.e. American citizens.

It works for anchors babies too. They also are illegal aliens.

American citizens are not illegal aliens.

Nobody said they were. They said anchor babies (who are illegal aliens) are not American citizens.

 

[protectionist]

And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

The way Jacob Howard stated it.

So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

"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.

IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.

Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.

Feel free to stop parroting your same old crap.

I have said before- you don't like the 14th Amendment then change it. The Amendment process is there for that purpose.

I however, defend the Constitution from those who would try to twist the clear language of the Constitution.

Jacob Howard made it perfectly clear what he was writing when he wrote the amendment. You are in DENIAL.

 

[barryqwalsh]

USA Baby Care, which has a hotel in Anaheim — near Disneyland, south of Los Angeles — offers lodging and prenatal care for expectant mothers but provides other reasons to convince Asian women to give birth in the U.S.

“In the case of political instability or unrest, U.S. citizens enjoy the protection of the U.S. government,” the service says on a Chinese-language website that has a picture of a baby next to the Statue of Liberty and the U.S. Capitol. “Even if there is an airspace shutdown, they enjoy priority to get on a plane to leave.”

The service has prices ranging from $14,000 to $22,000.


Giving birth in U.S. to get babies citizenship draws suspicion The Japan Times

 

[barryqwalsh]

Center Introduction month

US satisfied with the baby a month center professional, high quality, efficient and maternal and child care institutions, founded in 2003, is the founder of Ms. Neva license nurse with extensive experience in maternal and child care, for the majority of mothers and mothers to provide prenatal and postnatal maternal and child care guidance, and commissioning work to do mental and emotional for moms. Founded 10 years ago, our long the "customer first, good faith," the purpose of the United States to make every effort to provide our children customer service. We have a strong team of medical nurses, immigration consultant team and logistics team, make every effort to enable customers to "save money, save time, worry, and effort." In addition to providing you with professional maternal and child care services, we can provide customers with Immigration, US buyers, green card application, as well as free public school services.Our month of Evergreen Hotel New center for eight years throughout a 6-storey building is the hall, the second floor is the kitchen, restaurant, hotel safe environment alone, eight Chengdu his pregnant mother who lived and Peiqia few foreign guests Corridor, parking lots, public areas equipped with 30 perturbation of the head, 24-hour security patrols with police connections, the center is a commercial tourist area can live any tourists, not just to the police interrogation, the lobby desk 24 hours Service personnel must swipe out the door, safe and Lu. The center specially hired nurse Taiwan experienced professional license, 24 hours in the hotel safe guard your health, personally trained many medals nanny good care of your baby.

 

[barryqwalsh]

Your baby is born that is a US citizen, can enjoy first-class citizens .. Read More .....

usababycare.com/about.html

 

[Syriusly]

"Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Just to make it simple for you:
All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity), are citizens of the United States. It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens. The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.

The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.

Of course there is . It is in Post # 132. Can't you read ?

What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation. In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.

Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
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 person."

The amendment actually reads, "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."

Howard's intent is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment. It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.

FALSE! Howard's intent is 100% relevant$

No- sorry- your interpretation of Howard's intent- and the intent of everyone who approved of the Amendment, and the intent of the State's that approved the Amendment are immaterial when it comes to the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

Howard could have intended to mean all persons except Chinese- but the clear language of the 14th Amendment makes it clear it applies to everyone- except those who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Show me a so-called 'anchor baby' who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and we will have found someone who is not a citizen- but we already knew that children of diplomats don't become U.S. citizens.

Every anchor baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by virtue of being an illegal alien, just like their parents. The 14th amendment didn't have to say everything it could say. Does a law against arson say barbeques allowed ? I already gave the example of free speech. You are deliberately avoiding the truth, and pretending the 14th amendment is somehow different. Nobody here is falling for your ruse.
"Sorry", but you've already lost this debate, whether you pretend not to or not.

How are they not subject to the jurisdiction? Just one example is all I am asking for.

For example- I am subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- if I drive 100 miles an hour down the freeway, I can be pulled over and cited or arrested. IF I illegally import Cuban cigars, I can be arrested for selling Cuban cigars here.

So what laws are illegal aliens not under the jurisdiction of?

Since you are convinced that they are not subject to the jurisdiction you should be able to provide some examples of how they are not.

The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear- everyone born here is a citizen- IF they are born subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

The only example I can think of are children of diplomats- they are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

Stop telling us what you want the 14th Amendment to say- and tell us exactly how it doesn't apply to all children born in the United States- except children of diplomats.

 

[Syriusly]

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

The way Jacob Howard stated it.

So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

"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.

IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.

Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.

Feel free to stop parroting your same old crap.

I have said before- you don't like the 14th Amendment then change it. The Amendment process is there for that purpose.

I however, defend the Constitution from those who would try to twist the clear language of the Constitution.

Jacob Howard made it perfectly clear what he was writing when he wrote the amendment. You are in DENIAL.

Like I said- doesnt' matter what you imagine what his intention was- the law always starts with the language of the law- you just don't like the language of the 14th Amendment- i.e. you don't like the language of the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

The way Jacob Howard stated it.

So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

"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.

IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.

So you're going to pretend that I didn't answer your question. That's not very helpful in winning debates. Right now, you're losing this one.

You didn't answer it.

Here let me ask the question again

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

"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.

IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment

You don't have to ask again. I answered it (twice now), and you know it, and you are just pretending. You can do that. No law against it., But it does make you look pretty stupid in this forum.

LOL....if you have to state that a poster looks stupid to other people its just another sign of you losing.

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

"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.

IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment

And you can't give an example.

 

[Oldglory1]

The way Jacob Howard stated it.

So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

"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.

IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.

So you're going to pretend that I didn't answer your question. That's not very helpful in winning debates. Right now, you're losing this one.

You didn't answer it.

Here let me ask the question again

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

"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.

IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment

You don't have to ask again. I answered it (twice now), and you know it, and you are just pretending. You can do that. No law against it., But it does make you look pretty stupid in this forum.

LOL....if you have to state that a poster looks stupid to other people its just another sign of you losing.

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

"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.

IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment

And you can't give an example.

Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

 

[Oldglory1]

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

The way Jacob Howard stated it.

So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

"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.

IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.

Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.

Feel free to stop parroting your same old crap.

I have said before- you don't like the 14th Amendment then change it. The Amendment process is there for that purpose.

I however, defend the Constitution from those who would try to twist the clear language of the Constitution.

Jacob Howard made it perfectly clear what he was writing when he wrote the amendment. You are in DENIAL.

Of course he is denial and he keeps asking the same old question over and over that has already been answered.. He's starting to sound like a parrot. All foreigners here on our soil are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws aka justice but that in no way means that their kids born on our soil are citizens of this country because the parents were not under our FULL jurisdiction and their newborns aren't either. What part of that aren't they getting about the qualifying word of "AND" subject to our jurisdiction? As I said, there would be no need for that qualifying word if they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction in every way.

 

[Syriusly]

So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

"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.

IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.

So you're going to pretend that I didn't answer your question. That's not very helpful in winning debates. Right now, you're losing this one.

You didn't answer it.

Here let me ask the question again

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

"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.

IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment

You don't have to ask again. I answered it (twice now), and you know it, and you are just pretending. You can do that. No law against it., But it does make you look pretty stupid in this forum.

LOL....if you have to state that a poster looks stupid to other people its just another sign of you losing.

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

"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.

IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment

And you can't give an example.

Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

LOL- is that all you have- since you have admitted defeat by failing to provide a single example of how an illegal alien is not subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States?

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

"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.

IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment

And you can't give an example.

Not one.

 

[Syriusly]

The way Jacob Howard stated it.

So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

"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.

IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.

Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.

Feel free to stop parroting your same old crap.

I have said before- you don't like the 14th Amendment then change it. The Amendment process is there for that purpose.

I however, defend the Constitution from those who would try to twist the clear language of the Constitution.

Jacob Howard made it perfectly clear what he was writing when he wrote the amendment. You are in DENIAL.

Of course he is denial and he keeps asking the same old question over and over that has already been answered.. He's starting to sound like a parrot. All foreigners here on our soil are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws aka justice but that in no way means that their kids born on our soil are citizens of this country because the parents were not under our FULL jurisdiction and their newborns aren't either. What part of that aren't they getting about the qualifying word of "AND" subject to our jurisdiction? As I said, there would be no need for that qualifying word if they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction in every way.

All foreigners here on our soil are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws

"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"

Thank you for finally admitting that all children born in the United States are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- and therefore per the plain language of the 14th Amendment are born citizens.

 

[80zephyr]

Well, if illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, then we've screwed up pretty bad because tens of thousands of them are serving time in state and federal peregrinates. We've even executed some of them and deported over 360,000 in 2013.

In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
"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." I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws. Yet you stretch that to mean that their kids should get birthright citizenship based on that. Yes, read what you quoted again. It is clear that "AND" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier. In most cases foreigners here are not subject to our full jurisdiction a separate thing from not being exempt from our laws. Their allegiance and citizenship is with another country so their kids born on our soil are also.

"Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Just to make it simple for you:
All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity), are citizens of the United States. It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens. The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.

The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.

Of course there is . It is in Post # 132. Can't you read ?

What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation. In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.

Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
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 person."

The amendment actually reads, "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."

Howard's intent is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment. It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.

FALSE! Howard's intent is 100% relevant, and it is the core of the amendment. At the time the amendment was written, it was so assumed (note the words > "of course") that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners, that it seen as simply understood, and not needed to be writtten in the amendment. It was felt that it was there just by assumption. If everything possible were to be put in every amendment, the Constitution would be trillions of pages long.
For the first amendment, regarding free speech, some things were not included in the amendment, which the amendment should, and does, include. These exceptions to the 1st amendment are now law in the USA, while still not being in the 1st amendment (ex. perjury, slander, libel, sedition, threats, fighting words, obscenity laws, etc)
What Congress intended, IS what Howard intended. It's just that, at the time, looking from foresight, nobody even dreamed of the ludicrous situation we have today where malicious, rogue countries (Mexico, China, India) use the absence of full specifics in the Constitution, (together with shameful Democrat et al political support) to invade the US and pillage it, as in the current 21st century style of imperialism they employ now, by way of remittances$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$

What they never dreamt was that the US would become a welfare state, and spend billions on immigrants. We can be quite sure as to what their intent would have been in that case.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Of course there is . It is in Post # 132. Can't you read ?

What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation. In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.

Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
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 person."

The amendment actually reads, "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."

Howard's intent is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment. It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.

FALSE! Howard's intent is 100% relevant$

No- sorry- your interpretation of Howard's intent- and the intent of everyone who approved of the Amendment, and the intent of the State's that approved the Amendment are immaterial when it comes to the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

Howard could have intended to mean all persons except Chinese- but the clear language of the 14th Amendment makes it clear it applies to everyone- except those who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Show me a so-called 'anchor baby' who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and we will have found someone who is not a citizen- but we already knew that children of diplomats don't become U.S. citizens.

Every anchor baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by virtue of being an illegal alien, just like their parents. The 14th amendment didn't have to say everything it could say. Does a law against arson say barbeques allowed ? I already gave the example of free speech. You are deliberately avoiding the truth, and pretending the 14th amendment is somehow different. Nobody here is falling for your ruse.
"Sorry", but you've already lost this debate, whether you pretend not to or not.

How are they not subject to the jurisdiction? Just one example is all I am asking for.

For example- I am subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- if I drive 100 miles an hour down the freeway, I can be pulled over and cited or arrested. IF I illegally import Cuban cigars, I can be arrested for selling Cuban cigars here.

So what laws are illegal aliens not under the jurisdiction of?

Since you are convinced that they are not subject to the jurisdiction you should be able to provide some examples of how they are not.

The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear- everyone born here is a citizen- IF they are born subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

The only example I can think of are children of diplomats- they are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

Stop telling us what you want the 14th Amendment to say- and tell us exactly how it doesn't apply to all children born in the United States- except children of diplomats.

What you are doing here is something that Jefferson warned would happen:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

You don't care about what the author meant. You only care that you can twist their words to get the results you want.

Mark

 

[Syriusly]

What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation. In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.

Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
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 person."

The amendment actually reads, "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."

Howard's intent is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment. It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.

FALSE! Howard's intent is 100% relevant$

No- sorry- your interpretation of Howard's intent- and the intent of everyone who approved of the Amendment, and the intent of the State's that approved the Amendment are immaterial when it comes to the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

Howard could have intended to mean all persons except Chinese- but the clear language of the 14th Amendment makes it clear it applies to everyone- except those who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Show me a so-called 'anchor baby' who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and we will have found someone who is not a citizen- but we already knew that children of diplomats don't become U.S. citizens.

Every anchor baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by virtue of being an illegal alien, just like their parents. The 14th amendment didn't have to say everything it could say. Does a law against arson say barbeques allowed ? I already gave the example of free speech. You are deliberately avoiding the truth, and pretending the 14th amendment is somehow different. Nobody here is falling for your ruse.
"Sorry", but you've already lost this debate, whether you pretend not to or not.

How are they not subject to the jurisdiction? Just one example is all I am asking for.

For example- I am subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- if I drive 100 miles an hour down the freeway, I can be pulled over and cited or arrested. IF I illegally import Cuban cigars, I can be arrested for selling Cuban cigars here.

So what laws are illegal aliens not under the jurisdiction of?

Since you are convinced that they are not subject to the jurisdiction you should be able to provide some examples of how they are not.

The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear- everyone born here is a citizen- IF they are born subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

The only example I can think of are children of diplomats- they are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

Stop telling us what you want the 14th Amendment to say- and tell us exactly how it doesn't apply to all children born in the United States- except children of diplomats.

What you are doing here is something that Jefferson warned would happen:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

You don't care about what the author meant. You only care that you can twist their words to get the results you want.

Mark

I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.

Again the plain language:

"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."

That is very inclusive.

If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.

But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.

Otherwise- the language is very clear.

 

[Syriusly]

Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws. Yet you stretch that to mean that their kids should get birthright citizenship based on that. Yes, read what you quoted again. It is clear that "AND" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier. In most cases foreigners here are not subject to our full jurisdiction a separate thing from not being exempt from our laws. Their allegiance and citizenship is with another country so their kids born on our soil are also.

"Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Just to make it simple for you:
All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity), are citizens of the United States. It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens. The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.

The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.

Of course there is . It is in Post # 132. Can't you read ?

What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation. In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.

Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
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 person."

The amendment actually reads, "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."

Howard's intent is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment. It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.

FALSE! Howard's intent is 100% relevant, and it is the core of the amendment. At the time the amendment was written, it was so assumed (note the words > "of course") that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners, that it seen as simply understood, and not needed to be writtten in the amendment. It was felt that it was there just by assumption. If everything possible were to be put in every amendment, the Constitution would be trillions of pages long.
For the first amendment, regarding free speech, some things were not included in the amendment, which the amendment should, and does, include. These exceptions to the 1st amendment are now law in the USA, while still not being in the 1st amendment (ex. perjury, slander, libel, sedition, threats, fighting words, obscenity laws, etc)
What Congress intended, IS what Howard intended. It's just that, at the time, looking from foresight, nobody even dreamed of the ludicrous situation we have today where malicious, rogue countries (Mexico, China, India) use the absence of full specifics in the Constitution, (together with shameful Democrat et al political support) to invade the US and pillage it, as in the current 21st century style of imperialism they employ now, by way of remittances$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$

What they never dreamt was that the US would become a welfare state, and spend billions on immigrants. We can be quite sure as to what their intent would have been in that case.

Mark

LOL- considering that there were no illegal immigrants at the time and people could come freely into the United States, I think they would be surprised at the debate.

 

[barryqwalsh]

Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.

There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourtee

Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.

There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:


Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted

that it was
impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], 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."

Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that

[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.


So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

So a baby born to a tourist on vacation in the US should automatically get American citizenship?

This is a crazy and unsustainable. It was not the intention of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

If a political party campaigned on this issue, it would win massive support.

 

[80zephyr]

FALSE! Howard's intent is 100% relevant$

No- sorry- your interpretation of Howard's intent- and the intent of everyone who approved of the Amendment, and the intent of the State's that approved the Amendment are immaterial when it comes to the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

Howard could have intended to mean all persons except Chinese- but the clear language of the 14th Amendment makes it clear it applies to everyone- except those who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Show me a so-called 'anchor baby' who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and we will have found someone who is not a citizen- but we already knew that children of diplomats don't become U.S. citizens.

Every anchor baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by virtue of being an illegal alien, just like their parents. The 14th amendment didn't have to say everything it could say. Does a law against arson say barbeques allowed ? I already gave the example of free speech. You are deliberately avoiding the truth, and pretending the 14th amendment is somehow different. Nobody here is falling for your ruse.
"Sorry", but you've already lost this debate, whether you pretend not to or not.

How are they not subject to the jurisdiction? Just one example is all I am asking for.

For example- I am subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- if I drive 100 miles an hour down the freeway, I can be pulled over and cited or arrested. IF I illegally import Cuban cigars, I can be arrested for selling Cuban cigars here.

So what laws are illegal aliens not under the jurisdiction of?

Since you are convinced that they are not subject to the jurisdiction you should be able to provide some examples of how they are not.

The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear- everyone born here is a citizen- IF they are born subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

The only example I can think of are children of diplomats- they are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

Stop telling us what you want the 14th Amendment to say- and tell us exactly how it doesn't apply to all children born in the United States- except children of diplomats.

What you are doing here is something that Jefferson warned would happen:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

You don't care about what the author meant. You only care that you can twist their words to get the results you want.

Mark

I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.

Again the plain language:

"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."

That is very inclusive.

If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.

But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.

Otherwise- the language is very clear.

When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.

In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.

But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

"Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Just to make it simple for you:
All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity), are citizens of the United States. It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens. The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.

The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.

Of course there is . It is in Post # 132. Can't you read ?

What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation. In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.

Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
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 person."

The amendment actually reads, "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."

Howard's intent is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment. It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.

FALSE! Howard's intent is 100% relevant, and it is the core of the amendment. At the time the amendment was written, it was so assumed (note the words > "of course") that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners, that it seen as simply understood, and not needed to be writtten in the amendment. It was felt that it was there just by assumption. If everything possible were to be put in every amendment, the Constitution would be trillions of pages long.
For the first amendment, regarding free speech, some things were not included in the amendment, which the amendment should, and does, include. These exceptions to the 1st amendment are now law in the USA, while still not being in the 1st amendment (ex. perjury, slander, libel, sedition, threats, fighting words, obscenity laws, etc)
What Congress intended, IS what Howard intended. It's just that, at the time, looking from foresight, nobody even dreamed of the ludicrous situation we have today where malicious, rogue countries (Mexico, China, India) use the absence of full specifics in the Constitution, (together with shameful Democrat et al political support) to invade the US and pillage it, as in the current 21st century style of imperialism they employ now, by way of remittances$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$

What they never dreamt was that the US would become a welfare state, and spend billions on immigrants. We can be quite sure as to what their intent would have been in that case.

Mark

LOL- considering that there were no illegal immigrants at the time and people could come freely into the United States, I think they would be surprised at the debate.

Because they never envisioned a welfare state.

Mark

 

[Syriusly]

Of course there is . It is in Post # 132. Can't you read ?

What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation. In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.

Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
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 person."

The amendment actually reads, "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."

Howard's intent is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment. It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.

FALSE! Howard's intent is 100% relevant, and it is the core of the amendment. At the time the amendment was written, it was so assumed (note the words > "of course") that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners, that it seen as simply understood, and not needed to be writtten in the amendment. It was felt that it was there just by assumption. If everything possible were to be put in every amendment, the Constitution would be trillions of pages long.
For the first amendment, regarding free speech, some things were not included in the amendment, which the amendment should, and does, include. These exceptions to the 1st amendment are now law in the USA, while still not being in the 1st amendment (ex. perjury, slander, libel, sedition, threats, fighting words, obscenity laws, etc)
What Congress intended, IS what Howard intended. It's just that, at the time, looking from foresight, nobody even dreamed of the ludicrous situation we have today where malicious, rogue countries (Mexico, China, India) use the absence of full specifics in the Constitution, (together with shameful Democrat et al political support) to invade the US and pillage it, as in the current 21st century style of imperialism they employ now, by way of remittances$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$

What they never dreamt was that the US would become a welfare state, and spend billions on immigrants. We can be quite sure as to what their intent would have been in that case.

Mark

LOL- considering that there were no illegal immigrants at the time and people could come freely into the United States, I think they would be surprised at the debate.

Because they never envisioned a welfare state.

Mark

They never envisioned women voting either.