Born in the U.S. = American citizen, but not if Trump has his way

[Correll]

Bull crap. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is completely clear. Illegal aliens are not subject to our jurisdiction. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the country they came from. You are just ignoring that condition

On American soil, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

The children of diplomats aren't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

US citizens are not unconstitutional. The notion is absurd

If you are an emigrant pregnant women that ran across the border JUST to have your baby in an American hospital your child is not an American as far as I'm concerned.........

Your "concern" does not alter the Constitution.

And I keep asking you and you can't quote the Constitution to back that up. Where does the Constitution say that?

The 14th Amendment has been quoted on this thread many times.

Begging the question, that assumes the truth of your position. The question is where does the Constitution say that criminals who came here in violation of our laws have Constitutional rights. You're assuming the truth of your baseless assertion in your answer. Prototypical begging the question

Address SCOTUS concerning this issue. Your opinion is meaningless.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bull crap. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is completely clear. Illegal aliens are not subject to our jurisdiction. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the country they came from. You are just ignoring that condition

On American soil, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

The children of diplomats aren't.

Only by exemption via the Constitution.

Amend the Constitution if you want to end anchor baby citizenship.

 

[12icer]

All who are posting about the fourteenth amendment, I must ask have you read it? Which page are you basing your post on? From the GPO There are Pages numbered from 1665 to 2047 including court interpretations. so somewhere in that range you can find the REAL answer, not just some talking point from a two line reader. It is available in pdf form. h**ps://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-9-15.pdf (Not live add the tt) I don't post live links very often.

 

[Unkotare]

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. All the whining in the world won't change that.

Logical fallacy of Proof by Assertion.


Your point is invalid.

It's funny when people try to use terms they don't understand.

 

[mgh80]

I'm not for birth right citizenship of illegals. Legal immigrants? Fine, I could accept that.

 

[Unkotare]

You don't "allow" US citizens to stay in their own country. We need to control who comes into our country in the first place.

Illegals aren't US citizens......

People born in the US ARE US citizens.

Except for all the exceptions.

The few exceptions.

So, you accept the principle of exceptions......

I think we have been overly limited in our interpretations of those exceptions. Just a little.

Visiting foreign diplomats and other official representatives, and those residing in embassies that represent the nation of their representation. That's it.

 

[Unkotare]

All who are posting about the fourteenth amendment, I must ask have you read it? ......

"Amendment XIV
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."

 

[kaz]

If you are an emigrant pregnant women that ran across the border JUST to have your baby in an American hospital your child is not an American as far as I'm concerned.........

Your "concern" does not alter the Constitution.

And I keep asking you and you can't quote the Constitution to back that up. Where does the Constitution say that?

The 14th Amendment has been quoted on this thread many times.

Begging the question, that assumes the truth of your position. The question is where does the Constitution say that criminals who came here in violation of our laws have Constitutional rights. You're assuming the truth of your baseless assertion in your answer. Prototypical begging the question

Address SCOTUS concerning this issue. Your opinion is meaningless.

Address the founding fathers concerning this issue. Your opinion is meaningless

 

[Unkotare]

......

When you denied the statement, "You want to flood the nation with people that will eventually vote democrat," as I said, "The statement is literally true whether or not that is your intent"

And again you are wrong. I don't want "to flood the nation" with anyone, I have no interest in ANYONE voting democrat, and all immigrants do not or will not vote democrat in perpetuity.

 

[Unkotare]

...... Your opinion is meaningless

The United States Constitution is meaningful.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your "concern" does not alter the Constitution.

And I keep asking you and you can't quote the Constitution to back that up. Where does the Constitution say that?

The 14th Amendment has been quoted on this thread many times.

Begging the question, that assumes the truth of your position. The question is where does the Constitution say that criminals who came here in violation of our laws have Constitutional rights. You're assuming the truth of your baseless assertion in your answer. Prototypical begging the question

Address SCOTUS concerning this issue. Your opinion is meaningless.

Address the founding fathers concerning this issue. Your opinion is meaningless

Your question has been answered over and over on the Board, so no you don't get "just once more", kaz.

 

[320 Years of History]

I cannot say what their citizenship policy was prior to 1977. What information have you showing that Canada's policy differed prior to 1977?

I can find no other country that has [notice your verb is in the present tense] birthright citizenship other than the USA and Canada thanks to your link. Here is the specific part of the law that pertains to 1977 so that is a fairly recent change.

The Right to Citizenship
Marginal noteersons who are citizens

• 3 (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if
  • (a) the person was born in Canada after February 14, 1977;

Are they the only ones? And I see that they didn't have it till 1977.

Damn, man. Will you please stop assuming that the information that comes your way is all there is to know about a topic? Was merely checking Wiki too much for you to do to confirm whether folks born in Canada prior to 1977 were automatically deemed Canadians?

By the 1930s and the outbreak of World War II, Canada's naturalization laws consisted of a hodgepodge of confusing acts, which still retained the term "British subject" as the designation for "Canadian nationals". This eventually conflicted with the nationalism that arose following the First and Second World Wars, and the accompanying desire to have the Dominion of Canada's sovereign status reflected in distinct national symbols (such as flags, anthem, seal, etc.). This, plus the muddled nature of existing nationality law, prompted the enactment of the "Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946", which took effect on 1 January 1947. On that date, "Canadian citizenship" was conferred on most Canadians previously classified as "British subjects". Subsequently, on 1 April 1949, Canadian nationality law was extended to Newfoundland, upon the former British colony joining the Canadian confederation as the Province of Newfoundland.

In general, everyone born in Canada from 1947 or later acquires Canadian citizenship at birth. In one 2008 case, a girl born to a Ugandan mother aboard a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Boston was deemed a Canadian citizen for customs purposes because she was born over Canada's airspace.​

I don't use wiki because it isn't a reliable source. In your own post you will note that it says "in general", that is not true. The law that made that true went into effect on the date I showed. That is from the Canadian government website which you provided a link for.

Fine, you just keep thinking that. Go to Canada some day and try to convince them you are correct in thinking it too. They'll laugh you into ignominy and right back to the "westwall" from whence you came.

Sure thing junior. Asinine responses like that don't help your argument.

Blue:
Dude, you barked up that tree. Or as one of my mentees used to say, "You just fucked with the wrong nigga."

I earlier wrote, "I cannot say what their citizenship policy was prior to 1977," because I had not at the time checked to find out. Your assigning to me the epithet "junior" made me do so, and it took all of two minutes to do so, six minutes fewer than it took to write the remarks below.

Expand the quote above and then read on to learn just what "JV intellectual integrity and rigor" means Then gaze into a mirror to find out what it looks like. It will not be my face staring back at you.


Red:
ROTFL at you!!! Asinine response!!?!! I'll show you what, sophomorically asinine a response is. Keep reading....

• An asinine response is, "I don't use wiki because it isn't a reliable source," written in response to my having given you clear and easily reviewed/confirmed evidence that Canadians had birthright citizenship prior to 1977. How would you come by it?
  • One way to come by it is by questioning the validity of your own thoughts about Canadian citizenship and looking for it on your own rather than waiting for the information to "fall in your 'effing' lap." Looking for it on your own likely would have led you to this site. Reading there and having a modest aptitude for reading comprehension, you'd have noticed the vagueness in what the document says about Canadian citizenship prior to 1977. Thus you'd have explored a bit further to see what the 1947 Act had to say. That would have led you to site discussed later in this post.
  • Another way to come by it, if you are unwilling to rely on the fact that I wrote that birthright citizenship existed prior to 1977, is to avail yourself of the "head start" I provided by clicking on the link in this sentence: "Was merely checking Wiki too much for you to do to confirm whether folks born in Canada prior to 1977 were automatically deemed Canadians?" How?
    1. Click the link.
    2. Read what's in the linked-to section, "History of British subject [sic] into Canadian citizenship," including the paragraph from it that I pasted above.
       • Notice that the Wiki writer doesn't provide a footnote, but s/he does state that "everyone born in Canada from 1947 or later acquires Canadian citizenship at birth."
       • Adopt a "trust but verify" frame of mind about the Wiki writer's claim.
         • Why? Mainly because the writer has clearly made a good effort to footnote/reference/support the claims and information provided in the Wiki entry, and quite a few of the footnotes point readers to highly reliable sources. S/he doesn't appear to have written the entry using only "top of his/her head" knowledge or suppositions.
    3. Think:
       • The Wiki page makes reference to a Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946/7.
       • The Citizenship Act of 1977 also makes reference to 1947.
       • Maybe the Citizenship Act of 1947 will corroborate the statement "everyone born in Canada from 1947 or later acquires Canadian citizenship at birth."
       • Why don't I make a small effort to find out, by quickly Googling for "Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947 text", whether that piece of legislation says anything "leaps out" and that may shed light on the question of whether Canada in some way, shape or form had birthright citizenship prior to 1977.
    4. Googling for "Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947 text".
       
    5. Notice that the very first result is precisely what you sought.
    6. Click on the link.
    7. Read the content at the bottom of the second page of the Act and the upper section of the third page (Part I, paragraphs numbered "4" and "5.")
    8. Arrive at the following conclusions:
       • The Wiki content is accurate.
       • People born in Canada or on a Canadian ship were, in 1947 by dint of their birth, Canadians.
       • Because the Citizenship Act of 1947 predates 1977, Canada had birthright citizenship prior to 1977.
       • I (Westwall) did not at all or thoroughly enough confirm the validity and soundness of my thinking prior to writing:
         • "The law that [enacted Canadian birthright citizenship] went into effect on the date I showed." (shown above in the quote)
• Asinine responses to the question I asked you -- "What information have you showing that Canada's policy differed prior to 1977?" -- are:
  • Citing a 1977 document that does not speak to what pre-1977 Canadian immigration law/policy was.
  • Responses written with the assumption that the appearance of a provision/concept in a 1977 piece of legislation is somehow indicative of the same concept/provision not existing in any prior legislation.
  • Citing content that I pointed out to you, thinking perhaps I didn't read through it (before providing it) to have at least an intermediate (if not comprehensive) sense of what it says and what its primary themes/points are. I know that other folks may not exercise the degree of intellectual rectitude and rigor that I do when they cite content; that's on them, and it is what it is.** You've presumably read enough of my posts to know the kinds of content I read and share: original research, scholarly articles/papers, original texts, rigorously developed arguments from experts on the topic in question, etc.
• Asinine is responding to other folks who are trying to have an intellectually honest discussion with you and doing so in a tone that implies they are idiots when you have not one shred of evidence to show that they are either stupid or ignorant or disingenuous.
• Asinine is thinking scope of your own knowledge and what you can "think of" constitutes the entirety of knowledge that exists to be comprehended and known.

**Note:
On a few occasions (~6), I have, prior to discussing the matters, had views that were essentially the same as those aired by a member here. On those occasions, I thought to myself:

"Sh*t, 'so and so' thinks the same thing I do on this topic. I had better look more closely into it because 'so and so' has shown themselves as willing to say just about any-stupidass-thing -- corroborating his position with nothing, or nothing credible -- without actually checking to see if there's any valid and sound basis for thinking it. I know I haven't explored this topic all that deeply; I had better do so before I go on record as having the same position as that nutjob."​

I can't think of a single country that has that policy. Can you link to one that does?

I know something else you appear incapable of thinking of.

 

[Correll]

Illegals aren't US citizens......

People born in the US ARE US citizens.

Except for all the exceptions.

The few exceptions.

So, you accept the principle of exceptions......

I think we have been overly limited in our interpretations of those exceptions. Just a little.

Visiting foreign diplomats and other official representatives, and those residing in embassies that represent the nation of their representation. That's it.

So you knew when you said it, ie "People born in the US ARE US citizens." that what you were saying was NOT TRUE.


You should stop doing that. It's called lying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

People born in the US ARE US citizens.

Except for all the exceptions.

The few exceptions.

So, you accept the principle of exceptions......

I think we have been overly limited in our interpretations of those exceptions. Just a little.

Visiting foreign diplomats and other official representatives, and those residing in embassies that represent the nation of their representation. That's it.

So you knew when you said it, ie "People born in the US ARE US citizens." that what you were saying was NOT TRUE.


You should stop doing that. It's called lying.

What he said is true with the exception as he pointed out of the children of diplomats.

And you just agreed that anchor babies are citizens and that everyone in the US other than diplomats (in most cases) are subject to US law.

 

[Unkotare]

"Amendment XIV
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."

 

[kaz]

......

When you denied the statement, "You want to flood the nation with people that will eventually vote democrat," as I said, "The statement is literally true whether or not that is your intent"

And again you are wrong. I don't want "to flood the nation" with anyone, I have no interest in ANYONE voting democrat, and all immigrants do not or will not vote democrat in perpetuity.

You reading posts or just responding to them?

 

[kaz]

...... Your opinion is meaningless

The United States Constitution is meaningful.

Non-sequitur

 

[kaz]

And I keep asking you and you can't quote the Constitution to back that up. Where does the Constitution say that?

The 14th Amendment has been quoted on this thread many times.

Begging the question, that assumes the truth of your position. The question is where does the Constitution say that criminals who came here in violation of our laws have Constitutional rights. You're assuming the truth of your baseless assertion in your answer. Prototypical begging the question

Address SCOTUS concerning this issue. Your opinion is meaningless.

Address the founding fathers concerning this issue. Your opinion is meaningless

Your question has been answered over and over on the Board, so no you don't get "just once more", kaz.

I didn't ask a question, Snarkey

 

[Unkotare]

......

When you denied the statement, "You want to flood the nation with people that will eventually vote democrat," as I said, "The statement is literally true whether or not that is your intent"

And again you are wrong. I don't want "to flood the nation" with anyone, I have no interest in ANYONE voting democrat, and all immigrants do not or will not vote democrat in perpetuity.

You reading posts or just responding to them?

I don't want "to flood the nation" with anyone, I have no interest in ANYONE voting democrat, and all immigrants do not or will not vote democrat in perpetuity.