Birthright Citizenship? Yes/No

[BlindBoo]

It's even clearer than the Second Amendment.

All persons born ..... are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

 

[Concerned American]

Oh, so you guys swore an oath, as long as they didn't disagree, eh. Not much on oaths, eh. Or is it just you?

Excuse me? Are you a constitutional scholar. I see at least three different interpretations of the 14th not the least being that it addressed the injustice of not granting slaves citizenship. If you were honest with yourself you would see the same thing. I'll wait and watch all the wailing one way or the other and see how the SCOTUS rules. I believe you have seen the last of anchor babies and your interpretation is never what was intended with the 14th. BTW, you took an oath too, will you support the SCOTUS if your interpretation fails?

 

[Chuz Life]

Only about 2/3 or 55 of the founders were born in the US. The other 19 were born in Britain. So I don't think the issue was on their minds at the time.

For sure, when the Constitution itself was being drafted, the framers were not thinking about, nor worried about illegals stealing their way in by dropping anchor babies.

EDIT: Same goes for when the 14th Amendment was authored, some 80 years after the Constitution was drafted.

Microsoft Copilot: Your AI companion

Microsoft Copilot is your companion to inform, entertain and inspire. Get advice, feedback and straightforward answers. Try Copilot now.

copilot.microsoft.com

 

[White 6]

Excuse me? Are you a constitutional scholar. I see at least three different interpretations of the 14th not the least being that it addressed the injustice of not granting slaves citizenship. If you were honest with yourself you would see the same thing. I'll wait and watch all the wailing one way or the other and see how the SCOTUS rules. I believe you have seen the last of anchor babies and your interpretation is never what was intended with the 14th. BTW, you took an oath too, will you support the SCOTUS if your interpretation fails?

No. Simply posting the 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.

What part do you interpret differently? Do you usually need interpretations to understand the English language?

 

[Concerned American]

No. Simply posting the 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.

What part do you interpret differently? Do you usually need interpretations to understand the English language?

So your oath was BS then when you don't agree with your duly appointed bettors? Hmm, how did you put that --- Nice to know. Review post #11, pay particular attention to the highlighted news article. As I said previously, I'll support whatever the SCOTUS decides. That's what the oath means.

 

[sparky]

So just what constituted 'citizen' in the late 1860's???.......~S~

 

[frigidweirdo]

Since it's coming up again



Let's discuss it.

On one hand you have pregnant women coming to the USA just to have a baby be an American citizen by being born here....then as the baby's mother she gets a way into the country .....

The downside?
Nobody, even naturally born to American Citizens, is free from proving their parents were Americans when they were born...

Creating room for all sorts of deportation scams and corruption by powerful people wanting to exert authority over average people.

So what do you think?

I think you'd need to change the Constitution if you don't want it

 

[sparky]

I think you'd need to change the Constitution if you don't want it

More, it's starting to sound like a new interpretation ........~S~

 

[jotathought]

Since it's coming up again



Let's discuss it.

On one hand you have pregnant women coming to the USA just to have a baby be an American citizen by being born here....then as the baby's mother she gets a way into the country .....

The downside?
Nobody, even naturally born to American Citizens, is free from proving their parents were Americans when they were born...

Creating room for all sorts of deportation scams and corruption by powerful people wanting to exert authority over average people.

So what do you think?

I agree .. end it. All it does is draw illegals to the United States so they can poop out a few kids, and many other unintended consequences.

 

[Chuz Life]

So just what constituted 'citizen' in the late 1860's???.......~S~

That could be answered several ways.

From today's perspective and applying it by looking backwards. (History revisionism)

From the writings and rulings of the time (originalism)

From what the courts may have ruled, even if the courts may have been unconstitutionally "writing law" by doing so.

Which one should we use?

 

[White 6]

So your oath was BS then when you don't agree with your duly appointed bettors? Hmm, how did you put that --- Nice to know. Review post #11, pay particular attention to the highlighted news article. As I said previously, I'll support whatever the SCOTUS decides. That's what the oath means.

What is a "duly appointed better"? Do you have some kind of persecution complex or perhaps some intellectual deficit or injury caused infirmity, so you recognize people as your betters, and assumed others did too?
Personally, I took the oath freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. I assumed everybody did.

 

[frigidweirdo]

More, it's starting to sound like a new interpretation ........~S~

Oh, they're coming out with new interpretations all the time. They do it with anything they don't like.

 

[Chuz Life]

I think you'd need to change the Constitution if you don't want it

I think the "amended 14th Amendment" would say exactly what the Authors thought they were writing in the first place and it would only take the addition of one word.

Amendment XIV​

Section 1.​

"All persons LEGALLY 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."

 

[sparky]

Which one should we use?

This may be were the constitutional rubber meets the supreme court road Chuz.....~S~

 

[Concerned American]

What is a "duly appointed better"? Do you have some kind of persecution complex or perhaps some intellectual deficit or injury caused infirmity, so you recognize people as your betters, and assumed others did too?
Personally, I took the oath freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. I assumed everybody did.

Sure, as long as you agree with them, eh? That's treason.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Subject To Jurisdiction Versus Subject Of Jurisdiction "

* Colloquial Meaning For Thereof "

No. Simply posting the 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.

What part do you interpret differently? Do you usually need interpretations to understand the English language?

The term thereof in the clause " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " includes meaning , as the phrase does not state simply " and subject to the jurisdiction " or " and subject to its jurisdiction " , though it could have been stated less colloquially as " and a subject of its jurisdiction " .

The us citizen is a subject of us jurisdiction .

A citizenship is a positive liberty of endowment , it is not a negative liberty of protection .

. Zone1 - Civis Etas Unis Sum And Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof Clause From Us 14th Amendment .

 

[White 6]

Sure, as long as you agree with them, eh? That's treason.

You appear to be the one that disagrees with the Constitution.
14th Amendment, US Constitution, Section 1:
Section 1
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.

I support all of the US Constitution, including 14th Amendment, Section 1.
Do you?

 

[sparky]

down the lawyer latin rabbit hole Monk...... ~S~

 

[Chuz Life]

This may be were the constitutional rubber meets the supreme court road Chuz.....~S~

That's what I believe it is.

Now ask me if I trust the SCOTUS to get it right.

Hint: the answer is NO.

 

[sparky]

Civitas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

now i need aspirin.......~S~