"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Oldglory1]

"Section 1. 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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

If we eliminate the simple citizenship by birth rule we are left with derivative citizenship; that is citizenship by blood. I suspect that very few people who advocate abolishing citizenship by birth have really considered what that will mean.

If birthright citizenship is eliminated, those born in the United States will lose their access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they will find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally complex US rules for citizenship by blood. Proof of citizenship can mean inquires about grandparents as well as parents, about marriage dates and birth dates of ancestors, and about the time that one's parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one's birth. This would certainly lead to a national citizenship registry and national identify cards. We would be creating a huge costly intrusive government bureaucracy and to what purpose?

You're making a mountain out of a molehill here. One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship. The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods. It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.

 

[Oldglory1]

"Section 1. 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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

Nope! They are subject to their parent's country. Any foreigner is subject to our laws while here so that is a moot point. Yes, it is quite clear with the qualifier word of "and" subject, etc. If they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction then there would have been no need for the qualifying word of "and". No need for an amendment. It just needs to be re-addressed by the Supreme Court and re-interpreted the way it was meant to be.

You mean reinterpreted in a way you find acceptable.

The plain language of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Anyone born here and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Children of diplomats.

If the Ambassador of Mexico has a child while he is hear, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Pretty much everyone else is.

No, it's not about me but what the writer's intent was. Yes, the language is very clear that one has to be subject to our full jurisdiction in order to gain birthright citizenship. I already mentioned the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction. No qualifier would have been necessary if anyone born on our soil was deemed a citizen. You actually think that the children of diplomats would be excluded but not children of illegal aliens? Are you really this stupid? It is because in both cases the children's parents were subject to a foreign country not ours.

Are you really that stupid?

A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.

Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.

The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.

For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.

Are YOU this stupid? Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.

Wrong again, "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier. Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction.. They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland. Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.

 

[Syriusly]

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

Nope! They are subject to their parent's country. Any foreigner is subject to our laws while here so that is a moot point. Yes, it is quite clear with the qualifier word of "and" subject, etc. If they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction then there would have been no need for the qualifying word of "and". No need for an amendment. It just needs to be re-addressed by the Supreme Court and re-interpreted the way it was meant to be.

You mean reinterpreted in a way you find acceptable.

The plain language of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Anyone born here and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Children of diplomats.

If the Ambassador of Mexico has a child while he is hear, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Pretty much everyone else is.

No, it's not about me but what the writer's intent was. Yes, the language is very clear that one has to be subject to our full jurisdiction in order to gain birthright citizenship. I already mentioned the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction. No qualifier would have been necessary if anyone born on our soil was deemed a citizen. You actually think that the children of diplomats would be excluded but not children of illegal aliens? Are you really this stupid? It is because in both cases the children's parents were subject to a foreign country not ours.

Are you really that stupid?

A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.

Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.

The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.

For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.

Are YOU this stupid? Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.

Wrong again, "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier. Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction.. They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland. Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.

Clearly you are this stupid.

What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?

They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.

If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.

Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?

 

[Flopper]

"Section 1. 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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

If we eliminate the simple citizenship by birth rule we are left with derivative citizenship; that is citizenship by blood. I suspect that very few people who advocate abolishing citizenship by birth have really considered what that will mean.

If birthright citizenship is eliminated, those born in the United States will lose their access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they will find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally complex US rules for citizenship by blood. Proof of citizenship can mean inquires about grandparents as well as parents, about marriage dates and birth dates of ancestors, and about the time that one's parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one's birth. This would certainly lead to a national citizenship registry and national identify cards. We would be creating a huge costly intrusive government bureaucracy and to what purpose?

You're making a mountain out of a molehill here. One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship. The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods. It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.

Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that. You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship. And what might that proof be? Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.

Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status. And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.

 

[Oldglory1]

"Section 1. 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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

If we eliminate the simple citizenship by birth rule we are left with derivative citizenship; that is citizenship by blood. I suspect that very few people who advocate abolishing citizenship by birth have really considered what that will mean.

If birthright citizenship is eliminated, those born in the United States will lose their access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they will find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally complex US rules for citizenship by blood. Proof of citizenship can mean inquires about grandparents as well as parents, about marriage dates and birth dates of ancestors, and about the time that one's parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one's birth. This would certainly lead to a national citizenship registry and national identify cards. We would be creating a huge costly intrusive government bureaucracy and to what purpose?

You're making a mountain out of a molehill here. One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship. The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods. It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.

Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that. You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship. And what might that proof be? Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.

Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status. And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.

WTH are you talking about? Of course a birth certificate would be proof of citizenship. Are you nuts? No one is advocating for changing birthright citizenship so that it is retroactive. Once the new law is in place then from that point forward at least one parent would have to be a citizen or legal resident. There is no reason whatsoever that a parent or legal resident couldn't provide proof of their right to be in this country You're grasping at straws now.

Changing birthright citizenship would indeed deter illegal immigration along with employer sanctions via e-verify. That would cut off any means of support here. Just what is your agenda in all of this?

 

[Oldglory1]

Nope! They are subject to their parent's country. Any foreigner is subject to our laws while here so that is a moot point. Yes, it is quite clear with the qualifier word of "and" subject, etc. If they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction then there would have been no need for the qualifying word of "and". No need for an amendment. It just needs to be re-addressed by the Supreme Court and re-interpreted the way it was meant to be.

You mean reinterpreted in a way you find acceptable.

The plain language of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Anyone born here and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Children of diplomats.

If the Ambassador of Mexico has a child while he is hear, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Pretty much everyone else is.

No, it's not about me but what the writer's intent was. Yes, the language is very clear that one has to be subject to our full jurisdiction in order to gain birthright citizenship. I already mentioned the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction. No qualifier would have been necessary if anyone born on our soil was deemed a citizen. You actually think that the children of diplomats would be excluded but not children of illegal aliens? Are you really this stupid? It is because in both cases the children's parents were subject to a foreign country not ours.

Are you really that stupid?

A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.

Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.

The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.

For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.

Are YOU this stupid? Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.

Wrong again, "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier. Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction.. They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland. Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.

Clearly you are this stupid.

What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?

They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.

If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.

Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I already said that anyone on our soil is subject to our laws. But that doesn't make them a citizen of this country. I already explained to you that the parents of illegal aliens aren't subject to our full jurisdiction just as diplomats aren't so why would the U.S. born of diplomats not be citizens but the spawn of illegals are? You're the stupid one here. I suspect an agenda on your part. What is it?

 

[Flopper]

"Section 1. 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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

If we eliminate the simple citizenship by birth rule we are left with derivative citizenship; that is citizenship by blood. I suspect that very few people who advocate abolishing citizenship by birth have really considered what that will mean.

If birthright citizenship is eliminated, those born in the United States will lose their access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they will find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally complex US rules for citizenship by blood. Proof of citizenship can mean inquires about grandparents as well as parents, about marriage dates and birth dates of ancestors, and about the time that one's parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one's birth. This would certainly lead to a national citizenship registry and national identify cards. We would be creating a huge costly intrusive government bureaucracy and to what purpose?

You're making a mountain out of a molehill here. One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship. The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods. It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.

Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that. You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship. And what might that proof be? Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.

Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status. And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.

WTH are you talking about? Of course a birth certificate would be proof of citizenship. Are you nuts? No one is advocating for changing birthright citizenship so that it is retroactive. Once the new law is in place then from that point forward at least one parent would have to be a citizen or legal resident. There is no reason whatsoever that a parent or legal resident couldn't provide proof of their right to be in this country You're grasping at straws now.

Changing birthright citizenship would indeed deter illegal immigration along with employer sanctions via e-verify. That would cut off any means of support here. Just what is your agenda in all of this?

There is no hard data that shows that abandoning birthright citizenship would reduce the amount of illegal immigration. While opponents of birthright citizenship seem to assume without facts that their rule will do some good, we do have a pretty good idea what bad things will happen if we eliminate the birthright citizenship rule:

First, we will have thousands of children born every year who have no citizenship. To cite just one group, under the pending congressional legislation, children of asylees and refugees will have no citizenship. They will be left without a country, creating an underclass of "exploitable denizens." This is what has happened in countries—like France—that do not have birthright as a criteria for citizenship.

Second, the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost. Why not just take the money we'd use to adjudicate the citizenship status of 300 million Americans and use it to enforce immigration laws?

Third, eliminating birthright citizenship is un-American. This is our unique heritage, one that hundreds of thousands of soldiers—citizens and noncitizens—fought the Civil War to enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to have a pretty damn good reason to change it—one better than some frustration with the federal government's inability to enforce existing immigration law. Further, what we are really talking about here is
punishing children for something "bad" that their parents did—or maybe not even anything bad but just being from the wrong country. We have a clear, long-standing rule of citizenship law—one that is easy to understand and easy to administer.

Finally, changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right to have a country.

In sum, the policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship as a rule are very, very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it's not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright citizenship rule for one that will cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to solve our complex immigration problems.
http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/73.birthrightsummary.pdf

 

[Conservative65]

"Section 1. 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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

"Section 1. 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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

The intent was not to do what you said. It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it. It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment

The INTENT when it was written was quite clear. It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent. They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT. Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them. Typical Liberal traitor.

The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it. You're as bad as they are. You may even be one of them.

 

[Conservative65]

"Section 1. 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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

If we eliminate the simple citizenship by birth rule we are left with derivative citizenship; that is citizenship by blood. I suspect that very few people who advocate abolishing citizenship by birth have really considered what that will mean.

If birthright citizenship is eliminated, those born in the United States will lose their access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they will find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally complex US rules for citizenship by blood. Proof of citizenship can mean inquires about grandparents as well as parents, about marriage dates and birth dates of ancestors, and about the time that one's parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one's birth. This would certainly lead to a national citizenship registry and national identify cards. We would be creating a huge costly intrusive government bureaucracy and to what purpose?

You're making a mountain out of a molehill here. One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship. The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods. It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.

Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that. You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship. And what might that proof be? Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.

Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status. And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.

WTH are you talking about? Of course a birth certificate would be proof of citizenship. Are you nuts? No one is advocating for changing birthright citizenship so that it is retroactive. Once the new law is in place then from that point forward at least one parent would have to be a citizen or legal resident. There is no reason whatsoever that a parent or legal resident couldn't provide proof of their right to be in this country You're grasping at straws now.

Changing birthright citizenship would indeed deter illegal immigration along with employer sanctions via e-verify. That would cut off any means of support here. Just what is your agenda in all of this?

There is no hard data that shows that abandoning birthright citizenship would reduce the amount of illegal immigration. While opponents of birthright citizenship seem to assume without facts that their rule will do some good, we do have a pretty good idea what bad things will happen if we eliminate the birthright citizenship rule:

First, we will have thousands of children born every year who have no citizenship. To cite just one group, under the pending congressional legislation, children of asylees and refugees will have no citizenship. They will be left without a country, creating an underclass of "exploitable denizens." This is what has happened in countries—like France—that do not have birthright as a criteria for citizenship.

Second, the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost. Why not just take the money we'd use to adjudicate the citizenship status of 300 million Americans and use it to enforce immigration laws?

Third, eliminating birthright citizenship is un-American. This is our unique heritage, one that hundreds of thousands of soldiers—citizens and noncitizens—fought the Civil War to enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to have a pretty damn good reason to change it—one better than some frustration with the federal government's inability to enforce existing immigration law. Further, what we are really talking about here is
punishing children for something "bad" that their parents did—or maybe not even anything bad but just being from the wrong country. We have a clear, long-standing rule of citizenship law—one that is easy to understand and easy to administer.

Finally, changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right to have a country.

In sum, the policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship as a rule are very, very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it's not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright citizenship rule for one that will cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to solve our complex immigration problems.
http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/73.birthrightsummary.pdf

Despite all your tripe, please explain why the criminals that came here against the law and shit out these anchor baby turds get to stay. I don't care if it causes them hardships to send them back. Their first action coming here was a crime and now people like you want to reward them. It's a slap in the face to those like my family who came here under the laws.

 

[Conservative65]

Nope! They are subject to their parent's country. Any foreigner is subject to our laws while here so that is a moot point. Yes, it is quite clear with the qualifier word of "and" subject, etc. If they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction then there would have been no need for the qualifying word of "and". No need for an amendment. It just needs to be re-addressed by the Supreme Court and re-interpreted the way it was meant to be.

You mean reinterpreted in a way you find acceptable.

The plain language of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Anyone born here and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Children of diplomats.

If the Ambassador of Mexico has a child while he is hear, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Pretty much everyone else is.

No, it's not about me but what the writer's intent was. Yes, the language is very clear that one has to be subject to our full jurisdiction in order to gain birthright citizenship. I already mentioned the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction. No qualifier would have been necessary if anyone born on our soil was deemed a citizen. You actually think that the children of diplomats would be excluded but not children of illegal aliens? Are you really this stupid? It is because in both cases the children's parents were subject to a foreign country not ours.

Are you really that stupid?

A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.

Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.

The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.

For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.

Are YOU this stupid? Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.

Wrong again, "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier. Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction.. They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland. Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.

Clearly you are this stupid.

What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?

They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.

If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.

Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?

Interesting you bring up bank robbers. A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail. However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd called an anchor babyh while they were here. Then, you want to let the criminal stay.

 

[Conservative65]

We need to invade is as we did Iraq and change things so the people an can stay home and build Mexico's economy
.

Great- another conservative who wants us to invade another country.

This time Mexico....like we invaded Iraq.......

Yet you want to give a pass to a bunch of illegals invading MY country simply because they shit out a turd anchor baby when they got here. Let the baby stay, you can support it. Send the illegal parents back. I don't care that they are separated. THEIR actions caused the result. Let them deal with it.

 

[Oldglory1]

"Section 1. 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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

If we eliminate the simple citizenship by birth rule we are left with derivative citizenship; that is citizenship by blood. I suspect that very few people who advocate abolishing citizenship by birth have really considered what that will mean.

If birthright citizenship is eliminated, those born in the United States will lose their access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they will find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally complex US rules for citizenship by blood. Proof of citizenship can mean inquires about grandparents as well as parents, about marriage dates and birth dates of ancestors, and about the time that one's parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one's birth. This would certainly lead to a national citizenship registry and national identify cards. We would be creating a huge costly intrusive government bureaucracy and to what purpose?

You're making a mountain out of a molehill here. One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship. The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods. It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.

Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that. You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship. And what might that proof be? Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.

Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status. And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.

WTH are you talking about? Of course a birth certificate would be proof of citizenship. Are you nuts? No one is advocating for changing birthright citizenship so that it is retroactive. Once the new law is in place then from that point forward at least one parent would have to be a citizen or legal resident. There is no reason whatsoever that a parent or legal resident couldn't provide proof of their right to be in this country You're grasping at straws now.

Changing birthright citizenship would indeed deter illegal immigration along with employer sanctions via e-verify. That would cut off any means of support here. Just what is your agenda in all of this?

There is no hard data that shows that abandoning birthright citizenship would reduce the amount of illegal immigration. While opponents of birthright citizenship seem to assume without facts that their rule will do some good, we do have a pretty good idea what bad things will happen if we eliminate the birthright citizenship rule:

First, we will have thousands of children born every year who have no citizenship. To cite just one group, under the pending congressional legislation, children of asylees and refugees will have no citizenship. They will be left without a country, creating an underclass of "exploitable denizens." This is what has happened in countries—like France—that do not have birthright as a criteria for citizenship.

Second, the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost. Why not just take the money we'd use to adjudicate the citizenship status of 300 million Americans and use it to enforce immigration laws?

Third, eliminating birthright citizenship is un-American. This is our unique heritage, one that hundreds of thousands of soldiers—citizens and noncitizens—fought the Civil War to enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to have a pretty damn good reason to change it—one better than some frustration with the federal government's inability to enforce existing immigration law. Further, what we are really talking about here is
punishing children for something "bad" that their parents did—or maybe not even anything bad but just being from the wrong country. We have a clear, long-standing rule of citizenship law—one that is easy to understand and easy to administer.

Finally, changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right to have a country.

In sum, the policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship as a rule are very, very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it's not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright citizenship rule for one that will cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to solve our complex immigration problems.
http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/73.birthrightsummary.pdf

Your continued strawman arguments are duly noted. Even if changing birthright citizenship wouldn't reduce illegal immigration by itself (but it would) it would put honor back into our citizenship. Most modern industrialized countries have changed their birthright citizenship qualifications to at least one parent having to be a citizen of their country. I don't recall all the horror stories happening in their countries as you paint here because of that. We have often had to change laws for the well being of our country. This is no different. Keep grasping at straws it's fun to watch. Again, just what is your agenda? Bleeding heart liberal or an ethnocentric that desires the transformation of our country via illegal immigration and anchor babies?

 

[Syriusly]

We need to invade is as we did Iraq and change things so the people an can stay home and build Mexico's economy
.

Great- another conservative who wants us to invade another country.

This time Mexico....like we invaded Iraq.......

Yet you want to give a pass to a bunch of illegals invading MY country simply because they shit out a turd anchor baby when they got here. Let the baby stay, you can support it. Send the illegal parents back. I don't care that they are separated. THEIR actions caused the result. Let them deal with it.

So you are in favor of invading Mexico like we invaded Iraq?

 

[Conservative65]

We need to invade is as we did Iraq and change things so the people an can stay home and build Mexico's economy
.

Great- another conservative who wants us to invade another country.

This time Mexico....like we invaded Iraq.......

Yet you want to give a pass to a bunch of illegals invading MY country simply because they shit out a turd anchor baby when they got here. Let the baby stay, you can support it. Send the illegal parents back. I don't care that they are separated. THEIR actions caused the result. Let them deal with it.

So you are in favor of invading Mexico like we invaded Iraq?

I didn't say anything about invading Mexico. We whipped their asses once and now they're pissed. The problem is traitors like you want to make up for it.

I'm in favor of putting armed guards at the border and shooting the illegals that try to sneak in. It will greatly reduce the anchor baby problem and send a message to those smart enough to figure out they need to come here according to the law instead of sneaking in and shitting out a turd.

 

[Syriusly]

"Section 1. 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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

"Section 1. 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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

The intent was not to do what you said. It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it. It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment

The INTENT when it was written was quite clear. It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent. They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT. Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them. Typical Liberal traitor.

The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it. You're as bad as they are. You may even be one of them.

Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?

Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.

The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.

You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.

You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.

While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.

You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

We need to invade is as we did Iraq and change things so the people an can stay home and build Mexico's economy
.

Great- another conservative who wants us to invade another country.

This time Mexico....like we invaded Iraq.......

Yet you want to give a pass to a bunch of illegals invading MY country simply because they shit out a turd anchor baby when they got here. Let the baby stay, you can support it. Send the illegal parents back. I don't care that they are separated. THEIR actions caused the result. Let them deal with it.

So you are in favor of invading Mexico like we invaded Iraq?

I didn't say anything about invading Mexico.

That was what my post was about- so your response was just an irrelevant, uneducated rant.

 

[Syriusly]

You mean reinterpreted in a way you find acceptable.

The plain language of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Anyone born here and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Children of diplomats.

If the Ambassador of Mexico has a child while he is hear, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Pretty much everyone else is.

No, it's not about me but what the writer's intent was. Yes, the language is very clear that one has to be subject to our full jurisdiction in order to gain birthright citizenship. I already mentioned the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction. No qualifier would have been necessary if anyone born on our soil was deemed a citizen. You actually think that the children of diplomats would be excluded but not children of illegal aliens? Are you really this stupid? It is because in both cases the children's parents were subject to a foreign country not ours.

Are you really that stupid?

A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.

Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.

The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.

For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.

Are YOU this stupid? Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.

Wrong again, "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier. Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction.. They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland. Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.

Clearly you are this stupid.

What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?

They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.

If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.

Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?

Interesting you bring up bank robbers. A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail. However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd called an anchor babyh while they were here. Then, you want to let the criminal stay.

See the difference between you and me is that I can tell the difference between a turd and a baby.

Oh and I can read the Constitution.

And actually believe in the Constitution.

Well frankly there are many differences- lets just say that I am nothing like you, but start with me not confusing turds with babies like you do.

 

[Conservative65]

"Section 1. 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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

"Section 1. 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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

The intent was not to do what you said. It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it. It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment

The INTENT when it was written was quite clear. It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent. They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT. Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them. Typical Liberal traitor.

The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it. You're as bad as they are. You may even be one of them.

Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?

Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.

The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.

You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.

You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.

While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.

You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.

I can read and write which means I'm not illiterate and will put my three degrees above your GED anytime son.

The INTENT of the 14th is clear to anyone that isn't a Liberal and wants to misinterpret it.

I don't like because I don't like Liberal dickheads.

You should saddened traitor. It's one thing to misinterpret the intention of the 14th Amendment. It's traitorous to want to allow the ILLEGAL parents to stay because they broke the law by shitting out their little turd here.

 

[Conservative65]

No, it's not about me but what the writer's intent was. Yes, the language is very clear that one has to be subject to our full jurisdiction in order to gain birthright citizenship. I already mentioned the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction. No qualifier would have been necessary if anyone born on our soil was deemed a citizen. You actually think that the children of diplomats would be excluded but not children of illegal aliens? Are you really this stupid? It is because in both cases the children's parents were subject to a foreign country not ours.

Are you really that stupid?

A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.

Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.

The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.

For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.

Are YOU this stupid? Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.

Wrong again, "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier. Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction.. They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland. Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.

Clearly you are this stupid.

What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?

They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.

If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.

Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?

Interesting you bring up bank robbers. A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail. However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd called an anchor babyh while they were here. Then, you want to let the criminal stay.

See the difference between you and me is that I can tell the difference between a turd and a baby.

Oh and I can read the Constitution.

And actually believe in the Constitution.

Well frankly there are many differences- lets just say that I am nothing like you, but start with me not confusing turds with babies like you do.

Apparently, you can't. Any baby born to an illegal that came here against the law then gets to stay is a turd that looks like a baby.

 

[Syriusly]

Are you really that stupid?

A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.

Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.

The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.

For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.

Are YOU this stupid? Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.

Wrong again, "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier. Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction.. They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland. Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.

Clearly you are this stupid.

What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?

They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.

If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.

Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?

Interesting you bring up bank robbers. A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail. However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd called an anchor babyh while they were here. Then, you want to let the criminal stay.

See the difference between you and me is that I can tell the difference between a turd and a baby.

Oh and I can read the Constitution.

And actually believe in the Constitution.

Well frankly there are many differences- lets just say that I am nothing like you, but start with me not confusing turds with babies like you do.

Apparently, you can't. Any baby born to an illegal that came here against the law then gets to stay is a turd that looks like a baby.

Yeah....must be a particularly Conservative mental issue that can't distinguish between a turd and a baby.

Sad.