Birthright Citizenship is Teed Up Again

[Mac-7]

An anchor holds a ship in place. What does the baby hold in place?

Itself, and in time family members under the ted kennedy family unification law

 

[Unkotare]

Itself, ...

Then YOU are an anchor baby.

 

[Unkotare]

... in time family members ...

Nope.

 

[Mac-7]

Then YOU are an anchor baby.

No, my parents were US citizens

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

See the post just above

Well, except for the fact that is not actually true.

 

[Unkotare]

No, my parents were US citizens

Doesn't matter. YOU are a US citizen because YOU were born in America. It didn't matter if your parents were US citizens or not.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Not the children born of foreign diplomats in the US

Which btw is not written into the 14th

Yes, it is. They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are they? Ever heard of diplomatic immunity? It's the same concept. Once again you prove your lack of education of this topic. We should be charging you tuition for the education you are being given.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Itself, and in time family members under the ted kennedy family unification law

Cite that law please. We probably need to correct your understanding.

 

[DGS49]

Doesn't matter. YOU are a US citizen because YOU were born in America. It didn't matter if your parents were US citizens or not.

You are wrong. If your parents are US citizens, you can be born anywhere on the planet or off of it, and you will still be a U.S. citizen. THIS is why it would have made NO DIFFERENCE if Soetoro had been born in Nigeria (or whatever shit-hole country his father came from), because he sprung from the womb of an American woman.

Of course if he had been born in some shit-hole African country, he would NOT be a citizen of THAT country because even the shit-hole countries of Africa know that it is ******* insane to grant citizenship to someone just because they happen to have been born there.

 

[Foxfyre]

Interesting and fruitless. SCOTUS decided this case long ago.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nothing is ever 'settled' when SCOTUS has full power to overturn any ruling in its past. And the high court has overturned numerous SCOTUS rulings handed down over the years. Some overturned dreadful rulings by former courts and others not so much.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nothing is ever 'settled' when SCOTUS has full power to overturn any ruling in its past. And the high court has overturned numerous SCOTUS rulings handed down over the years. Some overturned dreadful rulings by former courts and others not so much.

You can only overturn a SCOTUS precedence is with justification based on the Constitution. What do you have, other than a big fat nothing burger? The 14th Amendment is crystal clear that if you are born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you are a US citizen.

I would be interested in the case you plan to cite or portion of the Constitution to overturn 10 years of court precedence?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You are wrong. If your parents are US citizens, you can be born anywhere on the planet or off of it, and you will still be a U.S. citizen. THIS is why it would have made NO DIFFERENCE if Soetoro had been born in Nigeria (or whatever shit-hole country his father came from), because he sprung from the womb of an American woman.

Of course if he had been born in some shit-hole African country, he would NOT be a citizen of THAT country because even the shit-hole countries of Africa know that it is ******* insane to grant citizenship to someone just because they happen to have been born there.

He is not wrong. He was talking about the other poster's personal situation. That was not a blanket statement regarding everyone.

 

[Cellblock2429]

President-elect Donald Trump has announced a day-one policy to end birth citizenship. Currently, under U.S. law, a person is granted U.S. citizenship if they’re born in the country. Trump argues this creates an incentive for illegal immigration, or for a woman to simply travel to the United States from another country when she is pregnant. And if the child is born on American soil, then it opens the door to various social benefits and chain migration. [Not my words].

The operative words in the 14th Amendment are:

"...All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

(1) The quoted text is ambiguous. Anyone claiming that it is "clear" or "unambiguous" is simply lying.

(2) The political Left has always maintained the position that the section is rightly understood by ignoring the italicized words above. There is no legitimate principle of document interpretation that suggests ignoring substantive words or clauses to get the true meaning.

(3) The United States law enforcement and immigration authorities have presumed for generations that the quoted section MEANS that anyone born in the U.S. has automatic citizenship, regardless of any other factors.

(4) There is a footnote in a Supreme Court written opinion, composed by Justice Brennan that affirms the Left's interpretation of the clause, but of course that section of the opinion is dicta, and not binding.

(5) The interpretation currently accepted in the U.S. is not only unsupported in law, but it is manifestly foolish. Only a few countries in the world have adopted such foolish rules for citizenship.

It is unclear whether the "accepted meaning" of this section of the 14th Amendment can be changed by an Executive Order, a Federal regulation, a new law, or it would take a Constitutional Amendment. Just as important, even if it is changed one way or another, what does that mean to people who are currently presumed to be citizens whose only claim to citizenship in being born on U.S. soil? What would be the effective date for the "new" policy? Retroactive?

Whenever this issue is raised, the Left goes into shrieks of horror, claiming that the "Constitution" demands this policy, it is settled law, and so on. All bullshit, as you might expect. It has NEVER been definitively, legally, and Constitutionally decided.

/——/ “Left goes into shrieks of horror, claiming that the "Constitution" demands this policy,”
First and Second Amendments— not so much.

 

[Zincwarrior]

If someone is on a student visa, are they "subject to US jurisdiction"? How about if they are a tourist?

I wouldn't think so, those folks don't have to pay US income or estate taxes.

Yes. Anyone physically in the US is subject to US jurisdiction with the exception of treaty persons.

Persons here legally, illegally, and citizens are subject, else they could not be deported are charged criminally.
The language is NOT ambiguous.

 

[Zincwarrior]

There's no such thing as an "anchor baby."

Well technically, you just need a rope and a small boat.

 

[Foxfyre]

You can only overturn a SCOTUS precedence is with justification based on the Constitution. What do you have, other than a big fat nothing burger? The 14th Amendment is crystal clear that if you are born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you are a US citizen.

I would be interested in the case you plan to cite or portion of the Constitution to overturn 10 years of court precedence?

No. The Founders never intended that children born to diplomats, tourist, merchants, visitors etc. here from other countries would be entitled to citizenship. All SCOTUS has to do is revert back to original intent.

". . .The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship. . ."

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

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War.

So what? You made no commentary. A link is not a posting.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

There are 7 billion people on our planet.
The American Taxpayers can't support them all.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No. The Founders never intended that children born to diplomats, tourist, merchants, visitors etc. here from other countries would be entitled to citizenship. All SCOTUS has to do is revert back to original intent.

". . .The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship. . ."

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

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the catch all phrase that would need to be specified to not include illegals because they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. You cannot change the wording without an amendment.