"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Syriusly]

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

So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.


"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]

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.

Baby's born to tourists here have been getting American citizenship for years.

Where have you been?

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

 

[80zephyr]

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.

And? That was because they understood the writers intent. As we should as well.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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

So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.


"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

Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.

Mark

 

[Synthaholic]

DEPORT HER!!!!

Why?

She's an anchor baby.

 

[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.

Baby's born to tourists here have been getting American citizenship for years.

Where have you been?

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

Yes, I'm aware of that. My point is, it's totally crazy!

 

[Unkotare]

DEPORT HER!!!!

Why?

She's an anchor baby.

I'd take one of her to ten of you.

 

[Flopper]

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$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$

You are saying, "it was assumed that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners." How could that possible be a commonly accepted assumption? There were many thousands of children born to foreign parents in the US in the first half of the 18th century. Some were born during the 5 year residency requirement. Others were born to foreign parents who immigrated but never filed citizenship papers. Congress certainly would not have excluded their children from citizenship and written, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....".

The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people born in the United States and under US jurisdiction regardless of race, class, or gender. To claim Congress's intent was to exclude some children and include other is just not illogical.

 

[Oldglory1]

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$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$

You are saying, "it was assumed that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners." How could that possible be a commonly accepted assumption? There were many thousands of children born to foreign parents in the US in the first half of the 18th century. Some were born during the 5 year residency requirement. Others were born to foreign parents who immigrated but never filed citizenship papers. Congress certainly would not have excluded their children from citizenship and written, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....".

The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people born in the United States and under US jurisdiction regardless of race, class, or gender. To claim Congress's intent was to exclude some children and include other is just not illogical.

Yet, they clearly did exclude with this clause......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,

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And? That was because they understood the writers intent. As we should as well.

Mark

they understood the writers intent- which was never to treat women as legally equal to men.

So they changed the Constitution so women had the vote.

Don't like the Constitution- change it.

 

[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, 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$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$

You are saying, "it was assumed that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners." How could that possible be a commonly accepted assumption? There were many thousands of children born to foreign parents in the US in the first half of the 18th century. Some were born during the 5 year residency requirement. Others were born to foreign parents who immigrated but never filed citizenship papers. Congress certainly would not have excluded their children from citizenship and written, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....".

The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people born in the United States and under US jurisdiction regardless of race, class, or gender. To claim Congress's intent was to exclude some children and include other is just not illogical.

Yet, they clearly did exclude with this clause......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,

That 'clause' is not in the 14th Amendment.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....".

As pointed out by the previous poster- children born to foreigners were considered citizens- but not children who were 'foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors'

 

[80zephyr]

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.

And? That was because they understood the writers intent. As we should as well.

Mark

they understood the writers intent- which was never to treat women as legally equal to men.

So they changed the Constitution so women had the vote.

Don't like the Constitution- change it.

The Constitution has been interpreted differently by different courts. My hope is that a future court gets it right.

Mark

 

[Syriusly]

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

So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.


"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

Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.

Mark

The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.

 

[80zephyr]

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

So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.


"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

Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.

Mark

The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.

And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.

Mark

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And? That was because they understood the writers intent. As we should as well.

Mark

they understood the writers intent- which was never to treat women as legally equal to men.

So they changed the Constitution so women had the vote.

Don't like the Constitution- change it.

The Constitution has been interpreted differently by different courts. My hope is that a future court gets it right.

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

So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.


"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

Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.

Mark

The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.

And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.

Mark

And if wishes were horses, beggars would be riding.

 

[80zephyr]

Because they never envisioned a welfare state.

Mark

They never envisioned women voting either.

And? That was because they understood the writers intent. As we should as well.

Mark

they understood the writers intent- which was never to treat women as legally equal to men.

So they changed the Constitution so women had the vote.

Don't like the Constitution- change it.

The Constitution has been interpreted differently by different courts. My hope is that a future court gets it right.

Mark

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

So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.


"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

Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.

Mark

The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.

And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.

Mark

And if wishes were horses, beggars would be riding.

Hey, I'm simply using a liberal tactic to get the results I want. I have to say, they are good teachers.

Mark

 

[Flopper]

"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$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$

You are saying, "it was assumed that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners." How could that possible be a commonly accepted assumption? There were many thousands of children born to foreign parents in the US in the first half of the 18th century. Some were born during the 5 year residency requirement. Others were born to foreign parents who immigrated but never filed citizenship papers. Congress certainly would not have excluded their children from citizenship and written, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....".

The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people born in the United States and under US jurisdiction regardless of race, class, or gender. To claim Congress's intent was to exclude some children and include other is just not illogical.

Yet, they clearly did exclude with this clause......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,

That statement is attributed to Howard, the author of the amendment. It is not in the 14th amendment. In fact, the only criteria for citizenship in the amendment is in the first sentence of the amendment, "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." The only excursion that congress made was for those not under the jurisdiction of the United States, ambassadors, foreign minsters, and their families. The 14th Amendment was debated for months, and the wording was very, very carefully worked out. If they had meant to exclude any kind of people, aliens, children of aliens, they would have done so.

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

 

[Flopper]

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

So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.


"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

Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.

Mark

The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.

And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.

Mark

It's certainly possibly for the Supreme Court to reverse it's the decision but it's quite rare for them to do so.

A ruling that struct down birthright citizenship would at a minimum bring into question the citizenship of any child born in the US. The birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship.

 

[Oldglory1]

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

So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.


"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

Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.

Mark

The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.

And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.

Mark

It's certainly possibly for the Supreme Court to reverse it's the decision but it's quite rare for them to do so.

A ruling that struct down birthright citizenship would at a minimum bring into question the citizenship of any child born in the US. The birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship.

A case has never been brought before the Supreme Court to test and interpret the meaning of the 14th. It has merely been an assumption that children of illegal aliens are birthright citizens. Time we test it once and for all for clarification. You made this same stupid claim before that questions would arise on the citizenship of everyone. I already debunked you on that.. Do I have to repeat that to you once again just like you constantly asking the same questions over and over even though they have been answered? All one would have to do is to provide proof that their parents were either citizens of this country or legal residents. Besides, once interpreted correctly it would only affect future births on our soil.

 

[Oldglory1]

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$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$

You are saying, "it was assumed that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners." How could that possible be a commonly accepted assumption? There were many thousands of children born to foreign parents in the US in the first half of the 18th century. Some were born during the 5 year residency requirement. Others were born to foreign parents who immigrated but never filed citizenship papers. Congress certainly would not have excluded their children from citizenship and written, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....".

The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people born in the United States and under US jurisdiction regardless of race, class, or gender. To claim Congress's intent was to exclude some children and include other is just not illogical.

Yet, they clearly did exclude with this clause......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,

That statement is attributed to Howard, the author of the amendment. It is not in the 14th amendment. In fact, the only criteria for citizenship in the amendment is in the first sentence of the amendment, "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." The only excursion that congress made was for those not under the jurisdiction of the United States, ambassadors, foreign minsters, and their families. The 14th Amendment was debated for months, and the wording was very, very carefully worked out. If they had meant to exclude any kind of people, aliens, children of aliens, they would have done so.

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

They were excluded by the wording in the 14th. You just refuse to see it.