Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

[SwimExpert]

The real reason the right wants to 'abolish' the Citizenship Clause is because of fear and bigotry.

Nobody wants to abolish the citizenship clause, except for an isolated handful of lunatics. But there are some people who want to amend it to preempt those who would abuse the anchor bably loophole. The United States has one of the least restrictive citizenship laws in the world. That we easily confer the full rights of citizenship to immigrants and those who are born here, without substantial qualification is a strength for our country. That does not mean that it is within our best interest to maintain so loose a policy as to so easily admit abuse.

 

[bendog]

The real reason the right wants to 'abolish' the Citizenship Clause is because of fear and bigotry.

Nobody wants to abolish the citizenship clause, except for an isolated handful of lunatics. But there are some people who want to amend it to preempt those who would abuse the anchor bably loophole. The United States has one of the least restrictive citizenship laws in the world. That we easily confer the full rights of citizenship to immigrants and those who are born here, without substantial qualification is a strength for our country. That does not mean that it is within our best interest to maintain so loose a policy as to so easily admit abuse.

Ah wish it were ateteensixtahywon, an' we freed all them slaves, an' pushed em all up inta Yankeeland, build us a dang fine ole fence, an said 'we on our own now, y'all enjoy yo-seves, hea!" (-:

 

[Syriusly]

The real reason the right wants to 'abolish' the Citizenship Clause is because of fear and bigotry.

Nobody wants to abolish the citizenship clause, except for an isolated handful of lunatics. But there are some people who want to amend it to preempt those who would abuse the anchor bably loophole. The United States has one of the least restrictive citizenship laws in the world. That we easily confer the full rights of citizenship to immigrants and those who are born here, without substantial qualification is a strength for our country. That does not mean that it is within our best interest to maintain so loose a policy as to so easily admit abuse.

Who here would trust either party to Amend the 14th Amendment?

The two parties can't even agree on Immigration reform.

Its not going to happen.

 

[SwimExpert]

Who here would trust either party to Amend the 14th Amendment?

The two parties can't even agree on Immigration reform.

Its not going to happen.

I never said I expected it to happen. But I would like for it to happen.

 

[Skylar]

Who here would trust either party to Amend the 14th Amendment?

The two parties can't even agree on Immigration reform.

Its not going to happen.

I never said I expected it to happen. But I would like for it to happen.

It would take an amendment.

 

[SwimExpert]

The real reason the right wants to 'abolish' the Citizenship Clause is because of fear and bigotry.

Nobody wants to abolish the citizenship clause, except for an isolated handful of lunatics. But there are some people who want to amend it to preempt those who would abuse the anchor bably loophole. The United States has one of the least restrictive citizenship laws in the world. That we easily confer the full rights of citizenship to immigrants and those who are born here, without substantial qualification is a strength for our country. That does not mean that it is within our best interest to maintain so loose a policy as to so easily admit abuse.

Ah wish it were ateteensixtahywon, an' we freed all them slaves, an' pushed em all up inta Yankeeland, build us a dang fine ole fence, an said 'we on our own now, y'all enjoy yo-seves, hea!" (-:

No thanks, I don't like word salad. I'll take the fish, please.

 

[SwimExpert]

Who here would trust either party to Amend the 14th Amendment?

The two parties can't even agree on Immigration reform.

Its not going to happen.

I never said I expected it to happen. But I would like for it to happen.

It would take an amendment.

Yes. Amending the constitution would take an amendment. What a painful tautology.

 

[Skylar]

Who here would trust either party to Amend the 14th Amendment?

The two parties can't even agree on Immigration reform.

Its not going to happen.

I never said I expected it to happen. But I would like for it to happen.

It would take an amendment.

Yes. Amending the constitution would take an amendment. What a painful tautology.

More accurately, eliminating birthright citizenship would take an amendment. As precedent on the matter is thoroughly in favor of illegals being citizens at birth in the US.

You couldn't do it with mere legislation. And the courts are unlikely to side with the anti-birthright argument.

 

[SwimExpert]

Who here would trust either party to Amend the 14th Amendment?

The two parties can't even agree on Immigration reform.

Its not going to happen.

I never said I expected it to happen. But I would like for it to happen.

It would take an amendment.

Yes. Amending the constitution would take an amendment. What a painful tautology.

More accurately, eliminating birthright citizenship would take an amendment. As precedent on the matter is thoroughly in favor of illegals being citizens at birth in the US.

You couldn't do it with mere legislation. And the courts are unlikely to side with the anti-birthright argument.

You're not saying anything here that I haven't already said.

 

[Skylar]

Who here would trust either party to Amend the 14th Amendment?

The two parties can't even agree on Immigration reform.

Its not going to happen.

I never said I expected it to happen. But I would like for it to happen.

It would take an amendment.

Yes. Amending the constitution would take an amendment. What a painful tautology.

More accurately, eliminating birthright citizenship would take an amendment. As precedent on the matter is thoroughly in favor of illegals being citizens at birth in the US.

You couldn't do it with mere legislation. And the courts are unlikely to side with the anti-birthright argument.

You're not saying anything here that I haven't already said.

I'm simply clarifying what it is I'm actually referring to by 'it would take an amendment'. The 'it' would be the end to birthright citizenship. Which your 'tautology' argument indicated you weren't quite following.

Now you do.

 

[Flopper]

The real reason the right wants to 'abolish' the Citizenship Clause is because of fear and bigotry.

Nobody wants to abolish the citizenship clause, except for an isolated handful of lunatics. But there are some people who want to amend it to preempt those who would abuse the anchor bably loophole. The United States has one of the least restrictive citizenship laws in the world. That we easily confer the full rights of citizenship to immigrants and those who are born here, without substantial qualification is a strength for our country. That does not mean that it is within our best interest to maintain so loose a policy as to so easily admit abuse.

Who here would trust either party to Amend the 14th Amendment?

The two parties can't even agree on Immigration reform.

Its not going to happen.

Coming up with the text for the amendment would be pretty easy. The problem would be dealing with the aftermath. We would surely have to create a nationality law or pass a constitutional amendment where everyone legally born in the US would be of US nationality but only those born of US citizens would be citizens. The reason you would have to have a class of US nationals that are not citizens is that you will always have people whose parents could not or would not provide proof of citizenship. This would include illegal immigrants, foundlings, adoptions where parentage is unknown, as well parents that simply did not go through the process of proving their citizenship. With each new generation, the number of citizen-less American would grow. This is the case in almost every European country. In some of these countries, the percent of children born to non-citizens nationals has reached 20%.

 

[SwimExpert]

Coming up with the text for the amendment would be pretty easy. The problem would be dealing with the aftermath. We would surely have to create a nationality law or pass a constitutional amendment where everyone legally born in the US would be of US nationality but only those born of US citizens would be citizens.

Da fuq? You're just making things up now.

The reason you would have to have a class of US nationals that are not citizens is that you will always have people whose parents could not or would not provide proof of citizenship. This would include illegal immigrants

Illegal immigrants aren't citizens, capish?

foundlings, adoptions where parentage is unknown

What the **** does that have to do with anything? Sure, a foundling's birth location can't be proven. That is no different than the current situation. There are laws in place that address those things.

as well parents that simply did not go through the process of proving their citizenship.

You really mean to tell me that a citizen or legal resident would refuse to show that after giving birth to their child, purposely depriving their child of citizenship rights?

For ****'s sake dude, why don't we just talk about the legal status of Lexi Mason as a Human/Espheni hybrid? That's a more realistic fiction than your nonsense.

 

[Skylar]

I think birthright citizenship is simple enough to fix. Just have a provision for legal domicile. Done.

It would immediately eliminate all illegals.

 

[Flopper]

Coming up with the text for the amendment would be pretty easy. The problem would be dealing with the aftermath. We would surely have to create a nationality law or pass a constitutional amendment where everyone legally born in the US would be of US nationality but only those born of US citizens would be citizens.

Da fuq? You're just making things up now.

The reason you would have to have a class of US nationals that are not citizens is that you will always have people whose parents could not or would not provide proof of citizenship. This would include illegal immigrants

Illegal immigrants aren't citizens, capish?

foundlings, adoptions where parentage is unknown

What the **** does that have to do with anything? Sure, a foundling's birth location can't be proven. That is no different than the current situation. There are laws in place that address those things.

as well parents that simply did not go through the process of proving their citizenship.

You really mean to tell me that a citizen or legal resident would refuse to show that after giving birth to their child, purposely depriving their child of citizenship rights?

For ****'s sake dude, why don't we just talk about the legal status of Lexi Mason as a Human/Espheni hybrid? That's a more realistic fiction than your nonsense.

Almost all countries that do not have birthright citizenship laws such as in the US, have created nationality laws or constitutional amendments to establish the nationality of any person born within the country regardless of parentage. These people have nationality but possibly no citizenship. The reason is of course that for whatever reason many parents cannot or will not provide documentation of citizenship. Some simply don’t have the documentation; others just don’t care if their children are citizens. The result is after several generations you have many people living in the country who are descents of those that were born and raised in the country but are not citizens. So to avoid the problem associated with stateless, the country creates a legal status of nationality. Almost all Latin American countries as well European countries and much of Asia and Africa have done this. The US would do exactly the same thing if we abandon birthright citizenship.

Persons with nationality can get passports, have some rights, may or may not be able to serve in the military and cannot vote. In many countries persons with nationality can own property but in some others they cannot. In almost all countries, nationals can obtain citizenship but it often requires proving the citizenship of ones ancestors.

It is usually possible to prove whether a parent is a citizen as long as you know the details of birthplace and birth year. However, there lots of people that don’t know where their parents were born or even when they were born and of course some don’t even know who their parents are. Now let’s turn clock forward say 50 years or so. You may research and determine where your parents were born in the US. Does that mean they were citizens? They could have been illegal immigrants as far as law is concerned. So you need to prove that their parents are citizens. For most people researching parentage is not an option.

Yes, there are people that would not bother to get a copy of their birth certificate, or naturalization papers and file the paperwork to make the child a citizen. These include criminals, drug addicts, prostitutes, and people that are just plain ignorant. Also, keep in mind that birth certificates will not prove citizenship after changing birth right citizenship to parentage citizenship. Things get a lot more complicated when you abandon birthright citizenship.

The problem caused by Jus sanguinis, citizenship by parentage is the confusion at all levels of government and the bureaucracy it creates. For example, with every law that is passed that affects the public, a decision must be made as whether it applies only to citizens or to nationals. This is why we often refer to birthright citizenship as a simple yet elegant solution to the question of who is to be a citizen.

 

[Flopper]

I think birthright citizenship is simple enough to fix. Just have a provision for legal domicile. Done.

It would immediately eliminate all illegals.

You would still need a constitutional amendment.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Well, I see that liberals just don't care that we know from the authors of the 14th Amendment themselves that they never intended the amendment to grant automatic citizenship to babies whose parents were here illegally. Again, they even specified that the amendment would not grant automatic citizenship to the children born here of foreign diplomatic personnel serving in the U.S. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard, the chief drafter of the amendment, clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment:

Every 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 persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country. ( Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | CAIRCO - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform | issues legislation projects research )​

But, of course, as usual, emotion rules with liberals. They think it would be "mean" to abolish the anchor baby policy, so they just don't care about the facts or the law, even though even Harry Reid once said that no "sane" country should grant automatic citizenship to babies of illegal aliens.

‘NO SANE COUNTRY would have BIRTHRIGHT Citizenship!’ – EVIL RACIST Democrat Harry Reid in 1993

 

[Flopper]

Well, I see that liberals just don't care that we know from the authors of the 14th Amendment themselves that they never intended the amendment to grant automatic citizenship to babies whose parents were here illegally. Again, they even specified that the amendment would not grant automatic citizenship to the children born here of foreign diplomatic personnel serving in the U.S. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard, the chief drafter of the amendment, clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment:

Every 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 persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country. ( Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | CAIRCO - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform | issues legislation projects research )​

But, of course, as usual, emotion rules with liberals. They think it would be "mean" to abolish the anchor baby policy, so they just don't care about the facts or the law, even though even Harry Reid once said that no "sane" country should grant automatic citizenship to babies of illegal aliens.

‘NO SANE COUNTRY would have BIRTHRIGHT Citizenship!’ – EVIL RACIST Democrat Harry Reid in 1993

Intent comes into play when the language is ambiguous or the meanings of words and phrases have changed or when there has been a drafting error. When a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts have said, repeatedly, that the inquiry into legislative intent ends at that point. The language in the citizenship clause is crystal clear. The meaning of jurisdiction then is the same as it is today. Don't think for a minute that the courts are going overturn the 14th amendment on the grounds that both congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment accepted Howard's interpretation in a Senate hearing instead what the amendment actually said. That's just crazy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He is an alien, yes, from Canada.

No he isn't you idiot... he is a natural born, U.S. citizen.

Jesus.

Jesus will not vouch for him, either. He is a Christian dominonist from Canada, just like Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Socialist.

We just can't have these outsiders in the WH.

 

[Syriusly]

Well, I see that liberals just don't care that we know from the authors of the 14th Amendment themselves that they never intended the amendment to grant automatic citizenship to babies whose parents were here illegally. Again, they even specified that the amendment would not grant automatic citizenship to the children born here of foreign diplomatic personnel serving in the U.S. In 1866,

False comparison- after all- children born to foreign diplomats are in the United States legally- but their children are not born citizens.
Why?

Because their children are born not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

What faux Conservative RWNJ like yourself just don't care is what the Constitution actually says.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Again: the children of diplomat parents covered by diplomatic immunity are not subject to American jurisdiction,

Children born here of everyone else are subject to American jurisdiction and thus citizens.

Not hard to understand.