Birthright Citizenship…Arguments to begin this week at the Supreme Court.

[Rigby5]

Why not?

Because if you over rule the 14th the way it stands, then only Native Americans are citizens, and none of the descendants of European immigrants are citizens.

 

[Rigby5]

Remember the framers had no earthly inkling of the idea of illegsls walking in here at time of writing. Since it was not addressed then it’s not endorsed

Wrong.
The Framers wanted all the immigration possible, and in fact many of the treaties we signed to buy states, like from Mexico, require there to be no boundary to travel or immigration.
The first limit to immigration was around 1880 when they cheated the Chinese rail workers.

 

[Rigby5]

If the method and vehicle of your birth here is illegal then I can’t imagine how thinkers would construe that you are magically fully good for US citizenship, I think it’s a litmus for who in USSC is governed by facts vs feelings

The method and vehicle of everyone except the Native Americans were illegal, so than only Native American descendants could be citizens.

 

[Foxfyre]

I taught social studies for a good bit of my 21 years as a middle and high school teacher. You are simply full of shit as has been explained to you in many other threads like this one.

Oh my goodness. Your poor students. I learned all about the founding documents and the specific language in the Constitution in social studies. I grieve that your students did not.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Because if you over rule the 14th the way it stands, then only Native Americans are citizens, and none of the descendants of European immigrants are citizens.

America was founded in 1776…You didn’t know that?

 

[BrokeLoser]

The method and vehicle of everyone except the Native Americans were illegal, so than only Native American descendants could be citizens.

America was founded in 1776…You didn’t know that?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Wrong.
The Framers wanted all the immigration possible, and in fact many of the treaties we signed to buy states, like from Mexico, require there to be no boundary to travel or immigration.
The first limit to immigration was around 1880 when they cheated the Chinese rail workers.

You couldn’t be more wrong. The Framers were crystal clear with regard to who they wanted in America.

 

[BS Filter]

I predict 5-4. All 4 nays will be women

 

[80zephyr]

Didn't read you link very closely, did you?

What do you think I missed?

 

[80zephyr]

Your problem is that intent is not documented in the Constitution,

But, it appears it is.

In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

 

[Delldude]

But, it appears it is.

In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

Don't forget, he's studied Scotus decisions for 21 years.

 

[80zephyr]

Because they were born here, and that's what the 14th Amendment says.

There is disagreement on that point, by a lot of people that are more knowledgeable on the subject.

 

[Rawley]

I fully expect Roberts and Barrett to side with the three libs. Likely gonna keep the status quo because they don’t want to have that big of a change attached to their names. I personally don’t agree with any country giving birth citizenship with both parents not being citizens, especially here. The anchor baby crap has gotten ridiculous. I just don’t see them making the change.

It's really not going to be that big a change. The left has made a big deal out of it because they count on the anchor babies to boost their party's numbers.

 

[Rawley]

Because if you over rule the 14th the way it stands, then only Native Americans are citizens, and none of the descendants of European immigrants are citizens.

OK Sure.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Oh my goodness. Your poor students. I learned all about the founding documents and the specific language in the Constitution in social studies. I grieve that your students did not.

Why are you so full of shit? Do you have a degree in history, certified to teach social studies and a master's degree in education? If not, STFU, amateur!

You obviously have a liberal's view of the Constitution as a living, breathing document that adapts over time. A true conservative would go by what the documents says, not what you "think" it means.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There is disagreement on that point, by a lot of people that are more knowledgeable on the subject.

Especially more then you.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

But, it appears it is.

In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

Illegals are no longer subject to the foreign states they came from because they voluntarily left, never to return.

 

[Mac-7]

Illegals are no longer subject to the foreign states they came from because they voluntarily left, never to return.

In that case they are stateless since they are not US citizens either

The “never to return” part is an obvious error since the US is returning many of them every day

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

In that case they are stateless since they are not US citizens either

The “never to return” part is an obvious error since the US is returning many of them every day

You stupid schmuck! It's all about intent. People requesting asylum don't want to go back. What about them?

 

[Delldude]

Illegals are no longer subject to the foreign states they came from because they voluntarily left, never to return.

How come they end up where they started from?