Birthright Citizenship? Yes/No

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They don't have to, see post 47.

.

Your post is incorrect. The phrase "under the jurisdiction of" is well defined. There can be no "reinterpretation" of a well-known legal term. The SCOTUS will simply not rule the way you are fantasizing it will.

If what you claim is true, why haven't lower courts previously overturned that interpretation? Because they cannot!

 

[Mac-7]

I thought you considered yourself conservative. How can you be conservative, if you do not believe in the Constitution. One assumes, you were never military, and took and oath to it.

I dont believe in your interpretation of the Constitution

Birthright citizenship should be for Americans not chinese tourists or illegal aliens

 

[Mac-7]

Your post is incorrect. The phrase "under the jurisdiction of" is well defined. There can be no "reinterpretation" of a well-known legal term. The SCOTUS will simply not rule the way you are fantasizing it will.

If what you claim is true, why haven't lower courts previously overturned that interpretation? Because they cannot!

The Constitution means whatever 5 black robes on the SC say it means

Period

I agree that its an uphill battle with the advantage going to foreigners who want to scam the system

But reform is possible

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Since the passage of the 14th and the original SCOTUS decision, a lot of treaties and international laws have been put in place governing political jurisdiction of immigrants.

https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Universal-MigrationHRlaw-PG-no-6-Publications-PractitionersGuide-2021-eng.pdf

.

So, what did it say? I am not reading a linked page that you obviously you did not read and is irrelevant. if it agreed with your opinion, why did you not quote anything from the link?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Constitution means whatever 5 black robes on the SC say it means

Period

I agree that its an uphill battle with the advantage going to foreigners who want to scan the system

But reform is possible

No, it doesn't. That's your liberal feminine side talking. Strict interpretation is what conservative justices practice. You want a Constitution that is not textual. You can look that word up if you need to!

Why would they scan the system? Does it need an MRI or CT?

 

[Mac-7]

No, it doesn't. That's your liberal feminine side talking. Strict interpretation is what conservative justices practice. You want a Constitution that is not textual. You can look that word up if you need to!

Why would they scan the system? Does it need an MRI or CT?

You are clinging to strict interpretation of a previous ruling that you happen to like

But the Court can look at the words in the 14th and rule against you and the public teachers union

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You are clinging to strict interpretation of a previous ruling that you happen to like

But the Court can look at the words in the 14th and rule against you and the public teachers union

No, they won't. I predict they will kick it back with no changes, saying an amendment must be made to change the 14th's current wording. To require a new interpretation would require all the conservatives to switch to a liberal stance, as you want them to validate an interpretation not based on the actual text.

 

[Mac-7]

No, they won't. I predict they will kick it back with no changes, saying an amendment must be made to change the 14th's current wording. To require a new interpretation would require all the conservatives to switch to a liberal stance, as you want them to validate an interpretation not based on the actual text.

I think its a long-shot for the Roberts Court to support birthright citizenship for Americans only

But you never know

 

[WorldWatcher]

The "framers" of the 14th Amendment.

Primarily Senator, Jacob Howard.

Per the second image.

Foreigners and aliens who are part of members of a recognized diplomatic mission (i.e. amabssadors, ministers, and members of their family admitted as part of tghe foreign mission on diplomatic passports) are not currently covered 14th Amendments clause. So it's already functioning as the quote describes.

"foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers"

The text use foreigners and aliens to describe those who belong to recognized foreign delegatgions.

Some people try to read it be something else by inserting something that isn't there. Such as, ""foreigners, aliens, AND THOSE who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers". Thereby changing it from foreigners and aliens describing those on a diplomatic mission - a signle entity - to a list to a list of three different entities. Which is not what the Constitution says.

WW

DISCLAIMER: I'm fine with amending the Constitution to change the 14th Amendment so that jus soli only applies to those here in a "legal" status, because thats how you change the Constitution. Not by it being a "living document" like progressive liberals and progressive conservatives think.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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."

There is no such thing as a "LEGAL" birth, just as there is no such thing as an "ILLEGAL" birth. It's not the action of birth that is the issue, it is the status of the parent(s) that are in question.

So the below would be more appropriate.

WW


Amendment XIV

Section 1.

"All persons born TO A PERSON LEGALLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES or naturalized in the United States, EXCLUDING MEMBERS OF RECOGNIZED DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS, 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."

 

[WorldWatcher]

Exactly.

There is no reason or need to amend the 14th, if the SCOTUS simply interprets it the way they should. As you already explained.

Just interpret it any way we want ignoring the plain text.

That's a pretty progressive position to believe in the "living document" doctrine.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

I dont believe in your interpretation of the Constitution

Birthright citizenship should be for Americans not chinese tourists or illegal aliens

"Should be" is a reflection of desire. "What is" is a reflection on reality.

The two are not the same.

WW

 

[sparky]

SCOTUS ruling it that way would not be much of a stretch.

Don't they usually post a dissertation ???

~S~

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I think its a long-shot for the Roberts Court to support birthright citizenship for Americans only

But you never know

I guess we will see.

 

[Hafar1014]

It only applies if your mother is citizen in the first place

 

[Moonglow]

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?

No, of it is to be changed it must be done Constitutionally.

 

[Moonglow]

It only applies if your mother is citizen in the first place

Show us where it says that in the Constitution

 

[Moonglow]

Birthright citizenship is bullshit, and everyone knows it's bullshit. Anyone claiming that the wording of the 14th clearly authorizes it is either a liar or an idiot.

HOWEVER, when the USSC finally addresses the issue, nothing will change. THIS Supreme Court will not cast a shadow on hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens who were granted citizenship under the current incorrect reading.

Trump is right, but he will lose.

You read it here first.

Prove yer case, Limpy. Or can you, yer first gaph is claiming you know what everyone in the world thinks.

 

[Moonglow]

Why do MAGATs claim to be Christian yet hate with all their heart on USMB?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There is no such thing as a "LEGAL" birth, just as there is no such thing as an "ILLEGAL" birth. It's not the action of birth that is the issue, it is the status of the parent(s) that are in question.

So the below would be more appropriate.

WW


Amendment XIV

Section 1.

"All persons born TO A PERSON LEGALLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES or naturalized in the United States, EXCLUDING MEMBERS OF RECOGNIZED DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS, 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."

That would include people lawfully admitted to the US under some type of visa, would it not? That would not prevent someone from visiting the US in order to give birth here.

I also notice you eliminated any provision for American citizens who are born abroad.

Why not codify that American citizenship is granted to anyone born to at least one parent that is a United States citizen?

I think someone should be writing a new amendment repealing the 14th Amendment and making the required changes while leaving the other parts intact.