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

[Robert W]

Again I am 100% certain neither the Founders nor the authors of the 14th Amendment intended that children born to visitors or those on other short term visas would be citizens of the USA. That is why the clause 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was included in the 14th Amendment.

The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to those black Americans born on U.S. soil and had no home country to return to. They certainly did not intend for it to be interpreted that the poor and opportunistic of the entire world come here to have their babies and thereby forever be allowed to stay here in perpetuity.

I happen to believe you are correct. I have tried and tried to see if the SC is hearing this? I find nothing claiming it is hearing it today or soon.

 

[80zephyr]

By David North on January 16, 2011

I know. So, has anything changed?

 

[80zephyr]

That is actually impossible to surmise. Guessing, I suppose?

A lot of info on it.

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.

 

[Care4all]

14,568th time. - this is what your interpretation of the amendment is
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

That's the difference between "subject to" and "within" our jurisdiction in the 14th. You guys can never seem to grasp that.

When they are residing and living in the United States, they are under and subject to all of our laws....NOT their country's laws....they are fully subject to every law in the USA, and are given every protection of that law, and also every protection from that law... with things like due process, Miranda rights, 5th amendment, habeas corpus, right to a speedy trial, etc. in at minimum in criminal cases.

Under common law, jus soli, and before this amendment, anyone born on our soil, had U.S. citizenship...IF they were not one of the three exceptions mentioned....

and of course slaves were an exception. The 14th basically said, under all conditions other folks who had kids born here are citizens, black folks kids born here, and any nationality or skin color of the persons here, their children are citizens too, if born on our soil. Jus Soli.

Good read:

Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I really think, there is no way around the amendment's clear language and in order to change it, can't be done by pretending the words didn't mean what the words simply said in the amendment, and will need an amendment to change it.

 

[struth]

SUPREME COURT TO FINALLY HEAR ARGUMENTS ON THE ANCHOR BABY SCOURGE​

If SCOTUS rules for good real core Americans should we be ready for cities to burn down? What if the ruling is retroactive? What if we have to send home all with an illegal lineage? How will people prove their legal lineage?

Supreme Court to Finally Hear Arguments on the Anchor Baby Scourge - League of Power

After decades of deliberate ethnic cleansing against the American people, the US Supreme Court will finally hear arguments this week about our nation’s insane “anchor baby” policy. The Democrats’ ethnic cleansing lawfare teams are trying to stop President Donald Trump’s executive order to end...

www.lopmatrix.com

Yeah don’t see Trump winning this one

 

[Delldude]

When they are residing and living in the United States, they are under and subject to all of our laws....NOT their country's laws....they are fully subject to every law in the USA, and are given every protection of that law, and also every protection from that law... with things like due process, Miranda rights, 5th amendment, habeas corpus, right to a speedy trial, etc. in at minimum in criminal cases.

They're still citizens of the country they came here from.

 

[Godboy]

Although I’m not a supporter of anchor babies, I do not see the court overruling the 14th as it stands. Congress and a president needs to amend the constitution. No, I don’t believe you should automatically be given birth right citizenship if neither one of your parents are American citizens.

The Supreme Court's job is to interpret what the founders meant when they made the Constitution. No sane person thinks the founders had THIS in mind when they said "born here". They couldnt account for modern mass travel on planes and ships. Nor would they imagine that a pregnant illegal from mexico can sneak over the border and then squeeze out a kid and instantly gain citizenship. That would be a preposterous interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[d0gbreath]

You didn't. You made your mind right up. Forgive the rest of us if we find it a topic that deserves some consideration.

You're forgiven.

 

[d0gbreath]

Post 27 you gave an interpretation which is speculation.

Guilty as charged. I apologize.

 

[bendog]

The reason illegal immigrants present a challenge to our funding ... pretty much everything ... is NOT the 14th. BOTH PARTIES CREATED THE AMNESTY LAW.

 

[d0gbreath]

A lot of info on it.

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.

Thanks, but too much information to a guy that doesn't give a a shit.

 

[Unkotare]

The Supreme Court's job is to interpret what the founders meant when they made the Constitution. No sane person thinks the founders had THIS in mind when they said "born here". They couldnt account for modern mass travel on planes and ships. Nor would they imagine that a pregnant illegal from mexico can sneak over the border and then squeeze out a kid and instantly gain citizenship. That would be a preposterous interpretation of the Constitution.

The founders were familiar with ships.

Babies are born, not "squeezed out."

 

[WEATHER53]

When they are residing and living in the United States, they are under and subject to all of our laws....NOT their country's laws....they are fully subject to every law in the USA, and are given every protection of that law, and also every protection from that law... with things like due process, Miranda rights, 5th amendment, habeas corpus, right to a speedy trial, etc. in at minimum in criminal cases.

Under common law, jus soli, and before this amendment, anyone born on our soil, had U.S. citizenship...IF they were not one of the three exceptions mentioned....

and of course slaves were an exception. The 14th basically said, under all conditions other folks who had kids born here are citizens, black folks kids born here, and any nationality or skin color of the persons here, their children are citizens too, if born on our soil. Jus Soli.

Good read:

Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I really think, there is no way around the amendment's clear language and in order to change it, can't be done by pretending the words didn't mean what the words simply said in the amendment, and will need an amendment to change it.

Mostly incirrect
They do not gain citizens rights one bit bleater

 

[WEATHER53]

They're still citizens of the country they came here from.

And do not gain our citizenship rights

 

[WEATHER53]

The Supreme Court's job is to interpret what the founders meant when they made the Constitution. No sane person thinks the founders had THIS in mind when they said "born here". They couldnt account for modern mass travel on planes and ships. Nor would they imagine that a pregnant illegal from mexico can sneak over the border and then squeeze out a kid and instantly gain citizenship. That would be a preposterous interpretation of the Constitution.

No it’s to abide by what they write and interpret nor alter Nothing

 

[WEATHER53]

USSC don’t “interpret” an “updated” meaning of a stop sign or red light.
Lib loons feel that would be fairer.

 

[Unkotare]

...

They're still citizens of the country they came here from.

Who is?

 

[Rawley]

Under common law, jus soli, and before this amendment, anyone born on our soil, had U.S. citizenship...IF they were not one of the three exceptions mentioned....

What makes you think the founders intended to adopt the English common law doctrine of jus soli where if you were born in the King's Kingdom, you were a subject of the king. This was precisely the type of control that we fought and won our independence from.

 

[Delldude]

Who is?

Anyone from another country coming here legally or illegally.

 

[Unkotare]

Anyone from another country coming here legally or illegally.

How about people coming to this world for the first time?