Federal appeals court rules Trump administration can't end birthright citizenship

[Hafar1014]

You guys never cite a legal source for that claim.

When adopted, that clause, which was drafted against the backdrop of the Civil Rights Act, was clearly understood to withhold birthright citizenship from the American-born children of foreign diplomats present in this country, because under international law diplomats and their families were largely immune from the legal control and the courts of their host country. The limiting clause also was understood not to grant birthright citizenship to various members of Indian tribes whose political relations with the United States limited its authority over the tribes’ members. The scope of the limiting clause is a matter of political controversy today.
The SC will have the final word and what do you think the conservatives will rule

 

[BackAgain]

You guys never cite a legal source for that claim.

Liar. It has been cited time and time and time again. Lib, from your username on, you are opposed to honesty.

 

[WEATHER53]

When adopted, that clause, which was drafted against the backdrop of the Civil Rights Act, was clearly understood to withhold birthright citizenship from the American-born children of foreign diplomats present in this country, because under international law diplomats and their families were largely immune from the legal control and the courts of their host country. The limiting clause also was understood not to grant birthright citizenship to various members of Indian tribes whose political relations with the United States limited its authority over the tribes’ members. The scope of the limiting clause is a matter of political controversy today.
The SC will have the final word and what do you think the conservatives will rule

What you just described is the actual thought process and fact basis. Libs operate from wishes and feelings

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

NO the parent who gives birth must not be under any other jurisdiction. A citizen of another country

You guys never cite a legal source for that claim.

Citizenship is not bestowed because you choose to tack American onto a phony description. BOOM. Moron. Anchor babies are not Americans anymore than a child of a diplomat is a an American citizen. You are not a good representative of GA public schools effectiveness.

And just like that, a right wing nickname from a message board just ended birthright citizenship by calling it “phony”

 

[Rawley]

Try learning a little of our History Quimby.

We had jus Soli, birthright citizenship for all children born of whom came here to colonize or live BEFORE the 14th Amendment after the Civil War was written....primarily based on English Common law...all born on British soil were subjects of the King.... All, except slaves had birthright citizenship.

The 14th Amendment simply codified what we already practiced in America, birthright citizenship, but now included slaves....by saying ALL PERSONS born on this soil, were citizens.

Birthright citizenship was nothing new.

This court case in 1844, almost 25 years before the civil war and the 14th proved we had birthright citizenship to anyone born here with parents not citizens that came here.


--------

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Citizenship Clause​

The 1844 New York court case of Lynch v. Clarke was one of the first cases to address the concept of birthplace-based citizenshipin the United States, even though it did so in the context of deciding an inheritance in New York. Julia Lynch was born in New York to two Irish parents who were temporary visitors in the United States. Soon after her birth, Lynch and her family returned to Ireland without declaring an intent to be naturalized. Although she remained in Ireland for twenty years after her birth, a U.S. court later used the principle of jus soli, or birthplace-based citizenship,todecide that she was an American citizen at the time of her birth. The Court ruled that her prolonged residence in Ireland succeeding her birth did not affect her birthright citizenship in the United States. Judge Lewis Sandford wrote in 1844, “I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. The Lynch case is one of the few examples of how courts at the time applied the basic principle of citizenship based on some people’s birth in the United States.

I can entertain no doubt, but that by law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

Judge Lewis Sandford​

But such decisions only addressed the citizenship of white persons born in the United States, and those citizenship rights did not apply to all those born inside the country. Thirteen years after Lynch, the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision addressed the question of whether the descendants of people who were enslaved and brought to the United States were citizens entitled to the relevant rights and privileges granted to citizens under the Constitution. The Court enshrined the principle that enslaved people and people of African descent were not citizens of the United States, and in doing so rejected birthright citizenship for people of color and abrogated the concept that Black Americans were citizens of the United States by virtue of being born in the country.

The Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed certain rights for African Americans in all the states, was enacted following the end of the Civil War and sought to rectify the Dred Scott decision. Among other things, the Fourteenth Amendment sought to ensure birthright citizenship for everyone born on U.S. territory regardless of race.

The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment states the following: “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.” While the fight for citizenship recognition continued well after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the aim of the Amendment was to eliminate the existence of a class of people who were subjected to American law, but excluded from American legal rights. In essence, the use of jus soli to confer citizenship to those born on U.S. soil was to ensure that all those born within the country’s territory, regardless of race, would be citizens. Nevertheless, some groups continued to be excluded from recognition as citizens on the basis of race. Birthright Citizenship in the United States - American Immigration Council

Your argument that the Federal gvt followed British common law jus Soli, is based on a New York State case on inheritance?

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Liar. It has been cited time and time and time again. Lib, from your username on, you are opposed to honesty.

Sided by people who haven’t been able to end the birthright citizenship? Of course.

Liar. It has been cited time and time and time again. Lib, from your username on, you are opposed to honesty.

this guy was asked to cite a source, and proceeded to not cite a source.
You’re bearing whole deeper, body

Liar. It has been cited time and time and time again. Lib, from your username on, you are opposed to honesty.

me: You guys never cite anything. Cite something.
Backagain: I won't cite anything but you're a liar!

 

[BackAgain]

Sided by people who haven’t been able to end the birthright citizenship? Of course.

No, you ignorant scumbag. CITED.

And of course it is CITED by those who seek to install the correct understanding of the 14th Amendment in order to terminate the mistaken “birthright citizenship” interpretation of assholes like you.

this guy was asked to cite a source, and proceeded to not cite a source.
You’re bearing whole deeper, body

It has been posted innumerable times. It’s called the Congressional record, you moron.
That includes “contemporaneous Congressional records suggest that lawmakers did not want their efforts hijacked to grant sweeping citizenship rights to just anyone who managed to be born on U.S. soil. In fact, Senator Howard himself stated, ‘This rwill not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners … or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.’”

me: You guys never cite anything. Cite something.
Backagain: I won't cite anything but you're a liar!

What actually posted, you perpetual fraud, was what had been reported here frequent by all of us who recognize what a liar you are.

You need more?

 

[Care4all]

Your argument that the Federal gvt followed British common law jus Soli, is based on a New York State case on inheritance?

No, not on one case. From what I've researched it's what we have ALWAYS followed.

 

[Rawley]

No, not on one case. From what I've researched it's what we have ALWAYS followed.

??? Your cite says the was the first case to say that, 80 years after the founding of our country..

Since you done the research, you know that Jus soli is based in feudalism - that the monarchy wanted as many slaves as they could get.

Why on God's green earth would you think that Americans would continue that practice when is it at the base of why we rejected, revolted from and became independent from the monarchy?

 

[Care4all]

??? Your cite says the was the first case to say that, 80 years after the founding of our country..

Since you done the research, you know that Jus soli is based in feudalism - that the monarchy wanted as many slaves as they could get.

Why on God's green earth would you think that Americans would continue that practice when is it at the base of why we rejected, revolted from and became independent from the monarchy?

It was a lure to get Europeans to come to America and populate it. The promise of citizenship for their kids and themselves if they came here, instead of being outcasts....

 

[Rawley]

It was a lure to get Europeans to come to America and populate it. The promise of citizenship for their kids and themselves if they came here, instead of being outcasts....

Bullshit 100%

THey came here for the freedoms we provided, and adventure and a new start. Not single person emigrated to America saying, 'I'm going there because they practice Jus soli, just like the shithole I'm leaving.' Not one.

 

[BackAgain]

If Lib does cares to educate his ignorant self, which he doesn’t, here the link to the Congressional record.

https://ia801508.us.archive.org/26/items/DebatesThatLedToTheCreationOfTheFourteenthAmendment/Debates%20that%20led%20to%20the%20creation%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment.pdf

 

[Concerned American]

You guys never cite a legal source for that claim.

Hide and watch. You haven't got a real good batting average when it comes to your interpretation of legal matters.

 

[Concerned American]

You guys never cite a legal source for that claim.

And just like that, a right wing nickname from a message board just ended birthright citizenship by calling it “phony”
View attachment 1206889

Your definition of birthright citizenship has NEVER been correct. Again hide and watch. SCOTUS will set you straight.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, you ignorant scumbag. CITED.

And of course it is CITED by those who seek to install the correct understanding of the 14th Amendment in order to terminate the mistaken “birthright citizenship” interpretation of assholes like you.

It has been posted innumerable times. It’s called the Congressional record, you moron.
That includes “contemporaneous Congressional records suggest that lawmakers did not want their efforts hijacked to grant sweeping citizenship rights to just anyone who managed to be born on U.S. soil. In fact, Senator Howard himself stated, ‘This rwill not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners … or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.’”


What actually posted, you perpetual fraud, was what had been reported here frequent by all of us who recognize what a liar you are.

You need more?

If Lib does cares to educate his ignorant self, which he doesn’t, here the link to the Congressional record.

https://ia801508.us.archive.org/26/items/DebatesThatLedToTheCreationOfTheFourteenthAmendment/Debates%20that%20led%20to%20the%20creation%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment.pdf

#1 Thank you for the cite as it made is easier. The actual text is cited below from your own link. Thank you for the link BTW.

#2 Your quote is not what is in the Congressional Record. First you inserted elipsis as a method of shortening the quote , but also you inserted an "OR" condition which did not appear in the original.

You changed the meaning of the text from "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." to "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners … or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministersd."

In the actual debaste "foreigners, aliens,..." are used as adjectives to describe "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers". A single class of person present in the United States under diplomatic relations from a foreign country. By inserting the "OR" and making it ""foreigners, aliens, * * OR * * who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" you have changed the context of foreigners and aliens from descriptive of those on diplomatic missions to a list of different classes (foreigners, aliens, or...).

What you claim Sen. Howard said and what Sen. Howard actually said are two different things.

WW
.
.
.
"Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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."

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

SCOTUS will set you straight.

 

[BackAgain]

#1 Thank you for the cite as it made is easier. The actual text is cited below from your own link. Thank you for the link BTW.

#2 Your quote is not what is in the Congressional Record. First you inserted elipsis as a method of shortening the quote , but also you inserted an "OR" condition which did not appear in the original.

You changed the meaning of the text from "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." to "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners … or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministersd."

In the actual debaste "foreigners, aliens,..." are used as adjectives to describe "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers". A single class of person present in the United States under diplomatic relations from a foreign country. By inserting the "OR" and making it ""foreigners, aliens, * * OR * * who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" you have changed the context of foreigners and aliens from descriptive of those on diplomatic missions to a list of different classes (foreigners, aliens, or...).

What you claim Sen. Howard said and what Sen. Howard actually said are two different things.

WW
.
.
.
"Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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."

View attachment 1207161

First off, I didn’t alter anything. I copied and pasted a quote and cited that source.

Secondly, I went further and gave Lib )yet again) a link to the actual Congressional record. Somebody has to stop his lying and remedy his ignorance.

Third, that one snippet you quoted (clipping a snippet from a page) is unclear. It does not say what you imagine it says. If it did mean what you erroneously claim it means, then the rest of the debate on the matter wouldn’t apparently contradict it.

 

[Concerned American]

First off, I didn’t alter anything. I copied and pasted a quote and cited that source.

Secondly, I went further and gave Lib )yet again) a link to the actual Congressional record. Somebody has to stop his lying and remedy his ignorance.

Third, that one snippet you quoted (clipping a snippet from a page) is unclear. It does not say what you imagine it says. If it did mean what you erroneously claim it means, then the rest of the debate on the matter wouldn’t apparently contradict it.

It also states that it is the opinion of Mr. Howard. Opinions are like noses.

 

[BackAgain]

It also states that it is the opinion of Mr. Howard. Opinions are like noses.

A good point. I’d also question that this was the understanding of America at the time. I’m confidant that most citizens would have found it completely absurd to assume that a kid born here to illegal aliens are somehow automatically thereby deemed U.S. citizens.

 

[Unkotare]

A good point. I’d also question that this was the understanding of America at the time. I’m confidant that most citizens would have found it completely absurd to assume that a kid born here to illegal aliens are somehow automatically thereby deemed U.S. citizens.

Have you contacted your representatives to tell them that you are "confidant"?