Birthright Citizenship is Teed Up Again

[BackAgain]

Where does it say that in the Constitution? Hint: It doesn't because you made it up.

Your ignorance is on display yet again, ensign.

Try to keep up.

First off, I hadn’t claimed it was in the Constitution.

Secondly, it is in the Constitution.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens ….”

You’re dismissed, ensign.

 

[BackAgain]

I said it has come up and the courts have smacked it right back down. Keep stretching and you might find a point somewhere, but it is isn't looking good.

That doesn’t mean it won’t be examined again — with a different outcome.

It took over 50 years to reverse Plessy v. Ferguson and Roe v. Wade. Each.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

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

By amendment only. There is no other way.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

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

Ah, ytes, they are.

 

[meaner gene]

Not true

the 14th gave them citizenship

Only if they could prove birth in the US.

Birth records for enslaved people were kept in accordance with the 1799 Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery. This act required that clerks of cities and towns maintain birth records for children born to enslaved mothers after July 4, 1799.

Part of the consequences of treating human beings like chattel was that the careful record keeping of dates of birth, death, and parentage was abandoned throughout much of the country.

 

[meaner gene]

If anyone truly believes that an amendment, designed to insure that freed slaves and black people in general were recognized as U.S. citizens, was ever intended to make the child of some illegal alien a U.S. citizen because of the mere location of the child’s birth being on U.S. soil, then they are going to see that belief get challenged.

If they wanted the 14th to only apply to freed slaves, they would have said so.
Instead the idea it didn't cover "illegal aliens" is like saying that the 2nd amendment didn't cover "machine guns". As neither existed at the time the amendments were written.

 

[meaner gene]

The term "illegal alien" originated in the 1890s, and was first used in the San Antonio (Texas) Daily Light in 1895. The term was used in literature by 1924, and in the media in 1926 in an article in the New York Times.

The term "machine gun" originated in the 1860s and was first used in Richard Gatling's patent for the Gatling gun:

 

[Mac-7]

Not if it conflicts with the "clear text", which is the standard that the conservative justices claim they live by, and by which their prior decisions were based.

If they were to invoke a different standard, it would cause everybody to lose faith in the supreme court. And would open the court to all kinds of appeals for cases based on the two different constitutional interpretation standards.

There is no clear text that 5 unelected demigods in black robes cant reimagine

 

[Mac-7]

If they wanted the 14th to only apply to freed slaves, they would have said so.

And if they wanted it to apply to illegal aliens they would have pointed them out

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

SCOTUS will not touch anchor babies then, now, or in the future.

 

[Mac-7]

Yeah, but they screwed up and left a loophole for aliens dropping their kids here in the US.

No, someone after the founders screwed up

 

[Mac-7]

One has nothing to do with the other. Where is the draft mentioned in the Constitution since it did not exist until the Civil War? Your knowledge of history fails you yet again.

We have an excellent case against birthright citizenship for illegal alien children

And at least 4 years to get it done

But we cant settle it here

 

[Mac-7]

Ah, ytes, they are.

Wrong

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

We have an excellent case against birthright citizenship for illegal alien children

And at least 4 years to get it done

But we cant settle it here

Nope, you don't.

 

[BackAgain]

Yeah, but they screwed up and left a loophole for aliens dropping their kids here in the US.

Loopholes can get closed.

 

[Unkotare]

SCOTUS will not touch anchor babies then, now, or in the future.

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

 

[BackAgain]

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

Sadly, there is such a thing.

 

[Unkotare]

Sadly, there is such a thing.

There is not. No anchoring involved.

 

[BackAgain]

There is not. No anchoring involved.

There is. Anchoring is involved. Thus, the term.

 

[Unkotare]

There is. Anchoring is involved. ...

Nope.