Birthright Citizenship? Yes/No

[White 6]

I was posting about Biden's neglect of constitutional duty. Which is an impeachable offense. Also, since failure to secure the border was done in a way that privileges illegals over citizens and privileges Democrats. Biden systematically refused to act which is also an impeachable offense.

No. Actually, if falls within current Supreme Court rulings, meant to shield Trump, but also making the aged Joe Biden free of any legal repercussions, or prosecutable actions, as they were policy of his administration, whether we liked or approved the policy or not.

 

[Rawley]

Plessy was based on no constitutional law in effect at the time and that is why it was overturned.

Neither was Wong

 

[Hafar1014]

Damn, it would been so easy for them to stipulate that when they wrote it instead of " All persons born or naturalized in the United States...." if that's what they meant. They only excluded the natives, that was changed to include them as well.

They never imagined an invasion of illegals. In order to give birth to citizen you must be one in the first place

 

[WorldWatcher]

They never imagined an invasion of illegals. In order to giver birth to citizen you must be one in the first place

Your desire for that is one thing, which is fine. However reality is different.

Some people have difficulty separating the two.

WW

 

[BlindBoo]

They never imagined an invasion of illegals. In order to give birth to citizen you must be one in the first place

Since we didn't have so called illegals until well after the Amendment was adopted, why would they consider people coming to America to fill jobs as some kind of invasion? Poncho Via, okay that was a kind of invasion, but an army of busboys, dishwashers, cooks, maids, yard workers and so on? I don't think they would have worried about it.

 

[MayorQuimby]

I just have my normal, conservative, ingrained, unconditional belief in the Constitution, and that includes the 14th Amendment.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We settled this back in 1867, as part of the supreme law of the land.

Laws are man-made and can be changed. When a law stops serving the people, as the case currently is, it can and should be changed. I fail to see the point of being a Constitution literalist.

 

[White 6]

Laws are man-made and can be changed. When a law stops serving the people, as the case currently is, it can and should be changed. I fail to see the point of being a Constitution literalist.

Until it is changed, it is the Constitution and the Supreme Law of the land. I threw my lot in, with complete support for the Constitution of the United States, a long time ago. I will not change that support now.

 

[MayorQuimby]

Until it is changed, it is the Constitution and the Supreme Law of the land. I threw my lot in, with complete support for the Constitution of the United States, a long time ago. I will not change that support now.

Well I commend your unwavering dedication to the supreme law of the nation, but I think there is something to be said for being a bit more flexible. Your country is under an extreme existential threat, you need to be more flexible in how you interpret and apply your Constitution so your don't end up as the Dodos.

 

[White 6]

Well I commend your unwavering dedication to the supreme law of the nation, but I think there is something to be said for being a bit more flexible. Your country is under an extreme existential threat, you need to be more flexible in how you interpret and apply your Constitution so your don't end up as the Dodos.

How many other modern countries, have lasted as long? How did not make it through the first 250 years? Odds say, betting on our constitution is the winning move.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They never imagined an invasion of illegals. In order to give birth to citizen you must be one in the first place

Since when?

 

[MayorQuimby]

How many other modern countries, have lasted as long? How did not make it through the first 250 years? Odds say, betting on our constitution is the winning move.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for your Constitution, I think it's a wonderful invention. But I just think that you could benefit from being a bit more flexible in your approach, is all I'm saying.

 

[White 6]

I mean, don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for your Constitution, I think it's a wonderful invention. But I just think that you could benefit from being a bit more flexible in your approach, is all I'm saying.

I wasn't raised that way. I took an oath. I keep it. When you take it, you know you can live or die with it. Nothing changes that, certainly not, retirement.

 

[MayorQuimby]

I wasn't raised that way. I took an oath. I keep it. When you take it, you know you can live or die with it. Nothing changes that, certainly not, retirement.

Again, I have deep respect for that. But it's like I said, I really think you need a more flexible approach.

 

[Hafar1014]

Since when?

A foreign tourist whose wife gives birth in America or diplomat doesnt create citizen. The baby is a citizen of his parents country

 

[WorldWatcher]

A foreign tourist whose wife gives birth in America or diplomat doesnt create citizen. The baby is a citizen of his parents country

That's what you want it to be (as it pertains to the US), that does not reflect reality.

WW

 

[Hafar1014]

That's what you want it to be (as it pertains to the US), that does not reflect reality.

WW

It makes sense and dont be surprised if the SC rules on that

 

[MayorQuimby]

That's what you want it to be (as it pertains to the US), that does not reflect reality.

WW

But he's right though isn't he? A tourist whose wife gave birth on American soil does not create a citizen.

 

[WorldWatcher]

But he's right though isn't he? A tourist whose wife gave birth on American soil does not create a citizen.

No he's not.

The US has blended citizenship at birth. Jus soli (citizenship based on birth un US soil with only some exceptions*), and Jus sanguinis (citizen based on a blood relationship to one or both parents)

In the US we have both jus soli and jus sanguinis. We're not talking about granting citizenship based on immigration.

Under the 14th Amendment we have jus soli for those born here, we have jus sanguinis which would be operative if a child is born outside the use to one or both US citizen parents.

There is actually a thing here call "Birth Tourism". While not illegal there are steps to prevent it. The US can deny a visa to a "tourist" if appears that the person is attempting to travel to the US to give birth on US soil. So while not a ciminal act, birth tourism can result in deportation and barring of future reentry. Also criminal prosecution has resulted for organizations promoting immigration fraud for arranging birth tourism.

WW
.
.
.
.
.
*** The exceptions to jus sanguinis are those present in the us under a recognized diplomatic mission (ambassadors, ministers, and their family) present as representatives of a foreign government, such persons are specifically excempted under the 14th. The other group, IIRC, would be an invasion by a foreign nation/government whose troops are present on US soil, their offspring would not fall under the jus soli convention.

 

[Unkotare]

But he's right though isn't he? A tourist whose wife gave birth on American soil does not create a citizen.

As of right this minute it does.

 

[Hafar1014]

As of right this minute it does.

Yes there is abuse of the law mainly by Asians.