Birthright Citizenship? Yes/No

[White 6]

Talking about the process.

The Southerns States were forced to sign on "at the point of a bayonet ".

One state reversed on it's approval but congress would not let them.

The whole thing was a giant Kangaroo Government.....mess.

The 14th was never ratified correctly.

I know, I know....it's there now.

Don't really give a flying fig. It sucks and I will forever be against it and hate it.

No. They simply had to ratify it, as a condition of getting representation in Congress, after losing the Civil War, they fought to keep slavery.

Nobody cares whether you like it.

As an American, you should support it. That is, unless you are just a worthless MAGA fk, unwilling to support the US Constitution. If you are anti-Constitution, you should immigrate. The United States would not change their decision on the direction of the country for your rebellious great, great grandfathers, and will not for you, either. Your side lost, so it did not and does not get it they way they would have wanted it, way back then. Useless MAGA fks are always wanting to turn back the clock, to a time when they think they would have loved this country.

 

[protectionist]

No, it's not. Not according to the current, century and a half understanding of the Constitution.

Which is wrong, stupid, and contradictory to the author of the 14th Amendment.

 

[protectionist]

No. They simply had to ratify it, as a condition of getting representation in Congress, after losing the Civil War, they fought to keep slavery.

Nobody cares whether you like it.

As an American, you should support it. That is, unless you are just a worthless MAGA fk, unwilling to support the US Constitution. If you are anti-Constitution, you should immigrate. The United States would not change their decision on the direction of the country for your rebellious great, great grandfathers, and will not for you, either. Your side lost, so it did not and does not get it they way they would have wanted it, way back then. Useless MAGA fks are always wanting to turn back the clock, to a time when they think they would have loved this country.

Supporting the Constitution is supporting the 14th Amendment, which is opposed to birthright citizenship, so said the author of the 14th Amendment, Sen Jacob Howard.

".[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Howard also said of the exclusion of Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties: "I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me."

According to historian Glenn W. LaFantasie of Western Kentucky University, "A good number of his fellow senators supported his view of the citizenship clause." Senator Reverdy Johnson said in the debate:
"the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States."

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[White 6]

Supporting the Constitution is supporting the 14th Amendment, which is opposed to birthright citizenship, so said the author of the 14th Amendment, Sen Jacob Howard.

".[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Howard also said of the exclusion of Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties: "I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me."

According to historian Glenn W. LaFantasie of Western Kentucky University, "A good number of his fellow senators supported his view of the citizenship clause." Senator Reverdy Johnson said in the debate:
"the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States."

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Good background but sons and daughters of foreign ambassadors (not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States due to parental diplomatic immunity) is not what the discussion on birthright citizenship is about. It is about whether a child born of alien parents moving here hoping to establish residency or even citizenship are to be considered citizens, simply because the moment they are born, they are subject to jurisdiction of the United States. The 14th Amendment to the constitution, makes this clear. They are subject to the jurisdiction, all laws, rights, restrictions and regulations, and are Citizens of the United States. While their alien (legal or otherwise) are indeed subject to the laws and regulations, must not only make the choice, but go through the steps. The children born here do not have choice on when/where they are born, and are subject to our jurisdiction (if born here) at birth.

Based on the oral arguments and questions the various Supreme Court members asked, quite pointedly, at times, you will see this play out, supporting the 14th Amendment, as written. Trump's EO will go down in flames.

 

[protectionist]

Good background but sons and daughters of foreign ambassadors (not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States due to parental diplomatic immunity) is not what the discussion on birthright citizenship is about. It is about whether a child born of alien parents moving here hoping to establish residency or even citizenship are to be considered citizens, simply because the moment they are born, they are subject to jurisdiction of the United States. The 14th Amendment to the constitution, makes this clear. They are subject to the jurisdiction, all laws, rights, restrictions and regulations, and are Citizens of the United States. While their alien (legal or otherwise) are indeed subject to the laws and regulations, must not only make the choice, but go through the steps. The children born here do not have choice on when/where they are born, and are subject to our jurisdiction (if born here) at birth.

Based on the oral arguments and questions the various Supreme Court members asked, quite pointedly, at times, you will see this play out, supporting the 14th Amendment, as written. Trump's EO will go down in flames.

FALSE! The Constitution as it was created , does not include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, born of parents who at the time were not subject to the authority of the United States.

This decision isn't going to be ready until late June. It's a bit early for predictions. If the words of Sen Jacob Howard are being heard in the courtroom, it is hard to see how this bc could stand.

 

[Robert W]

Good background but sons and daughters of foreign ambassadors (not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States due to parental diplomatic immunity) is not what the discussion on birthright citizenship is about. It is about whether a child born of alien parents moving here hoping to establish residency or even citizenship are to be considered citizens, simply because the moment they are born, they are subject to jurisdiction of the United States. The 14th Amendment to the constitution, makes this clear. They are subject to the jurisdiction, all laws, rights, restrictions and regulations, and are Citizens of the United States. While their alien (legal or otherwise) are indeed subject to the laws and regulations, must not only make the choice, but go through the steps. The children born here do not have choice on when/where they are born, and are subject to our jurisdiction (if born here) at birth.

Based on the oral arguments and questions the various Supreme Court members asked, quite pointedly, at times, you will see this play out, supporting the 14th Amendment, as written. Trump's EO will go down in flames.

Not so fast. I don't know for a fact what the decision will be, but if it is right, it will not come down to favor those who broke our laws and gave birth to a kid. This even makes them worse since they broke our laws and then used that amendment thinking it will save them.

Imagine a pregnant bank robber from Nigeria taking advantage of robbing banks claiming her kid could not be prosecuted.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not so fast. I don't know for a fact what the decision will be, but if it is right, it will not come down to favor those who broke our laws and gave birth to a kid. This even makes them worse since they broke our laws and then used that amendment thinking it will save them.

If it's right they will follow what the Constitution says and not bend to political pressure because some don't fiund the current language convienent.

They should uphold the Constitution and make it clear that is the job of Congress to amend the Constitution if the administration wants a change.

And before you make an assumption, I'm fine with addressing it through and amendment to make jus soli applicable only to those legally present in the United States.

Imagine a pregnant bank robber from Nigeria taking advantage of robbing banks claiming her kid could not be prosecuted.

News flash, the child in the womb can't be prosecuted for a crime committed by the mother.

Go figure.

WW

 

[Robert W]

If it's right they will follow what the Constitution says and not bend to political pressure because some don't fiund the current language convienent.

That is why I said I have no clue what the SC will decide. I studied law in in college as a course needed to keep me as a broker in Real Estate, but the teacher told us many times, it is up to the Courts to decide and I believe that.

What will be interesting in this case as well as others if the court votes unanimously. Justices have the same habit I have in differing views and differing votes.

 

[Robert W]

News flash, the child in the womb can't be prosecuted for a crime committed by the mother.

You read me right since I made the same claim.

 

[White 6]

FALSE! The Constitution as it was created , does not include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, born of parents who at the time were not subject to the authority of the United States.

This decision isn't going to be ready until late June. It's a bit early for predictions. If the words of Sen Jacob Howard are being heard in the courtroom, it is hard to see how this bc could stand.

Not until the 14th Amendment. If you do not wish to support the US Constitution, move to a different country or suck it up and live with it. Feel free to file an Amicus brief with the Supreme Court.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not until the 14th Amendment. If you do not wish to support the US Constitution, move to a different country or suck it up and live with it. Feel free to file an Amicus brief with the Supreme Court.

He doesn't get that Senator Howards were included in the briefs and in the oral arguments.

Just they weren't cut off like he did in the OP and appeared in full context as adjectives describing those on diplomatic missions.

WW

 

[White 6]

Not so fast. I don't know for a fact what the decision will be, but if it is right, it will not come down to favor those who broke our laws and gave birth to a kid. This even makes them worse since they broke our laws and then used that amendment thinking it will save them.

Imagine a pregnant bank robber from Nigeria taking advantage of robbing banks claiming her kid could not be prosecuted.

It may not save them, and frankly, I do not care if it does or does not. But, the child born here has all the rights of citizenship you do, if you are actually a citizen and if you were actually born and not hatched.

 

[Robert W]

It may not save them, and frankly, I do not care if it does or does not. But, the child born here has all the rights of citizenship you do, if you are actually a citizen and if you were actually born and not hatched.

Imagine this problem. You and your wife visit Russia on vacation. There she has your child. Russia now states to you your child is a Russian citizen. Fine with you?

 

[Robert W]

" Basic Criteria Of Protection Collective State "

* Understandable And Resolvable *

There would be hurdles to verify citizenship , however a unique association between an individual us citizen and a social security number is fairly well documented and the disposition of verification is likely to be readily available .

Us citizens are entitled to a difference between subject to and subject of , for safety , security , autonomy and solvency of its republic .

All concur that individuals whom are not subjects by title in us legal immigration system , as undocumented sojourners , are not entitled to positive liberties such as medicaid , which affirms that such individuals are not subjects of us jurisdiction , though such individuals are subject to us jurisdiction .

Except by an act of diplomacy , as an agreement between us government and other governments , or between us government and an individual , such than an individual becomes a subject by title in us legal immigration system , and therefore a subject of us jurisdiction , the live birth of progeny on us soil , from such individuals does not qualify , does not qualify the offspring for jus soli citizenship , and is to be awarded jus originis citizenship to maternal country of origin .

Imagine for sake or an example, you and your wife visit Chile and she arrived there pregnant. She has your child and Chile now tells you since your child is citizen there, the child must stay. Is this a problem?

In the case of the USA, said pregnant woman has her child and can't remove it as it is a US Citizen. Does that sound kind?

 

[Robert W]

It may not save them, and frankly, I do not care if it does or does not. But, the child born here has all the rights of citizenship you do, if you are actually a citizen and if you were actually born and not hatched.

You and I are not the supreme court.

Now, this perhaps should happen. The child in this example born of illegal aliens is a citizen. The judge orders both parents out and says the child can't leave since it is a citzen and can't be deported. Any problem?

 

[White 6]

Imagine this problem. You and your wife visit Russia on vacation. There she has your child. Russia now states to you your child is a Russian citizen. Fine with you?

No. 1. I would not and will not visit Russia. No. 2. I am 71 and PJ 70, so we will not be having any more kids. No. 3. Back when we were of age to have kids (and did, a girl and 2 boys) I was a cold warrior with significant security clearances, read into a lot of things for a lot of reasons, and definitely would not be traveling with my wife to what was then an enemy communist country.

But, If PJ had joined me in a foreign country, it would have been while I was military, and our child would have automatically had American citizenship. If they were also qualified to be foreign citizen (though unlikely, as would have been born or a military base (most likely Germany) it would not bother me.

But, this has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.

 

[Robert W]

No. 1. I would not and will not visit Russia. No. 2. I am 71 and PJ 70, so we will not be having any more kids. No. 3. Back when we were of age to have kids (and did, a girl and 2 boys) I was a cold warrior with significant security clearances, read into a lot of things for a lot of reasons, and definitely would not be traveling with my wife to what was then an enemy communist country.

But, If PJ had joined me in a foreign country, it would have been while I was military, and our child would have automatically had American citizenship. If they were also qualified to be foreign citizen (though unlikely, as would have been born or a military base (most likely Germany) it would not bother me.

But, this has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.

Look, my question assumes you were of child bearing age and Russia was just a country in the question.

So try not to dodge the way you did. Change ages of the husband and wife and they visit Germany. If the Germans said the child can't leave, since it is German, what will the parents do?

 

[Robert W]

Another way for this problem is the parents are citizens of Mexico. And have a child in Colorado. And are told that since they parents are citizens of Mexico, and are deported, are not allowed to take the child with them. Fair? T their child is the citizen.