Birthright Citizenship is Teed Up Again

[DGS49]

There is no Supreme Court decision affirming the right of people born here to automatic citizenship.

Those familiar with how it works know that Supreme Court precedents are only binding when the principle in question was the deciding principle in the case cited. If it was just commentary in the context of a decision, it is not binding. It is referred to as dicta.

A Constitutional Amendment would probably not be required, since is all that is necessary is to take a rational view of the actual words of the 14th. Could Congress pass a law saying, "This is what it means"? I don't know. I think that would be unprecedented.

The Left, and those supporting birthright citizenship, wish to read the 14th as though those words did not exist, when clearly they refer to citizens of other countries (or Indian tribes, I suppose).

 

[Robert W]

It is an insult if you are 100% right and the speaker is the the one that is ignorant.

I said I like your posts.

 

[Zincwarrior]

The Left, and those supporting birthright citizenship, wish to read the 14th as though those words did not exist, when clearly they refer to citizens of other countries (or Indian tribes, I suppose).

Thats not what jurisdiction means. Again, the issue here involves territorial, subject matter, and personal. Treaties remove that. AGAIN, if you are a person in the territorial land of the US and not protected by treaty, you are subject to our laws, that is you are subject to our jurisdiction.

jurisdiction

www.law.cornell.edu

Some types of jurisdiction include:

• Original jurisdiction: The court that first hears a case
  
  
  
  
• Appellate jurisdiction: The power of a higher court to review a lower court's decision
  
  
  
  
• Exclusive jurisdiction: Only one court has the power to hear a specific case
  
  
  
  
• Concurrent jurisdiction: Multiple courts share the power to hear the same case
  
  
  
  
• • Subject matter jurisdiction: The court's power to decide a specific issue, such as a contract or civil rights issue
    
    
    
  • Territorial jurisdiction: The court's power to bind the parties to the action
    
    
    
  • Personal jurisdiction: The court's power over a person or entity involved in a case
    
    
    
  • Specific jurisdiction: A form of minimum contacts that allows a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a corporate defendant

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yup

OK, then.

 

[Mac-7]

Thank you. I wish I could say the same for you!

Since you arent very modest, that being your best quality is not a compliment

 

[Mac-7]

Thats not what jurisdiction means. Again, the issue here involves territorial, subject matter, and personal. Treaties remove that. AGAIN, if you are a person in the territorial land of the US and not protected by treaty, you are subject to our laws, that is you are subject to our jurisdiction.

jurisdiction

www.law.cornell.edu

As a citizen I can be compelled to serve in the military against my will

But the US does not have that power over illegal aliens or chinese tourists who just dropped in to visit the Grand Canyon and have an anchor baby

 

[Unkotare]

As a citizen I can be compelled to serve in the military against my will

But the US does not have that power over illegal aliens or chinese tourists who just dropped in to visit the Grand Canyon and have an anchor baby

There is no such thing as an "anchor baby."

 

[Mac-7]

So. The kid is a citizen. That can't be changed.

It can be changed (aka denied), for future anchor babies

 

[meaner gene]

There is no Supreme Court decision affirming the right of people born here to automatic citizenship.

Those familiar with how it works know that Supreme Court precedents are only binding when the principle in question was the deciding principle in the case cited. If it was just commentary in the context of a decision, it is not binding. It is referred to as dicta.

A Constitutional Amendment would probably not be required, since is all that is necessary is to take a rational view of the actual words of the 14th. Could Congress pass a law saying, "This is what it means"? I don't know. I think that would be unprecedented.

The Left, and those supporting birthright citizenship, wish to read the 14th as though those words did not exist, when clearly they refer to citizens of other countries (or Indian tribes, I suppose).

The reason there is no supreme court decision, is that the clear text of the amendment requires twisting the words to come to any other interpretation.

 

[meaner gene]

As a citizen I can be compelled to serve in the military against my will

But the US does not have that power over illegal aliens or chinese tourists who just dropped in to visit the Grand Canyon and have an anchor baby

A citizen who has been convicted of a felony, can not be compelled to serve in the military either.

That is in no way proof, they are no longer citizens.

 

[meaner gene]

It can be changed (aka denied), for future anchor babies

Only by amending the US Constitution.

That's what would be required to change the 14th amendment.

 

[Unkotare]

It can be changed (aka denied), for future anchor babies

There is no such thing as an "anchor baby."

 

[Mac-7]

A citizen who has been convicted of a felony, can not be compelled to serve in the military either.

That is in no way proof, they are no longer citizens.

Please pay attention

I am not trying to strip citizenship from anchor babies already created

The issue is that the illegal alien parents are not qualified to create a citizen

 

[Unkotare]

Please pay attention

I am not trying to strip citizenship from anchor babies already created

The issue is that the illegal alien parents are not qualified to create a citizen

There is no such thing as an "anchor baby."

 

[meaner gene]

Please pay attention

I am not trying to strip citizenship from anchor babies already created

The issue is that the illegal alien parents are not qualified to create a citizen

What you claim, would mean slave parents are not qualified to create a citizen

And clearly the 14th was written to create citizens from non-citizen parents.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

OK...so we ban all pregnant women who are not citizens.

Problem solved.

Oops, can't do that, either.

 

[Mac-7]

Only by amending the US Constitution.

That's what would be required to change the 14th amendment.

an amendment would be helpful but takes too long and really isnt needed

 

[Mac-7]

There is no such thing as an "anchor baby."

Your needle is stuck

 

[Mac-7]

What you claim, would mean slave parents are not qualified to create a citizen

And clearly the 14th was written to create citizens from non-citizen parents.

There are no slaves today

The 14th was intended for freed slaves in 1865 and only slaves

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This racist fever dream is not going to happen. It's not the first time racists have complained about this, and it won't be the last.