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

[WorldWatcher]

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

Your quote: ‘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.’”

Actual test in YOUR cited source: "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 ministers."

Obviously they are different. So ya, you modified the quote and inserted an "or" where one didn't exist. Not only did I provide the correct text I included a screen shot from the section you claimed to have quoted.

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.

And I thanked you for the cite, I'm sorry you felt obliged to change the text.

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.

I quoted the passage YOU attempted to use to make a point, I'm sorry you felt obliged to change the text when what it says is not what you claimed.

WW

 

[BackAgain]

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

Stupid question.

 

[Unkotare]

Stupid question.

Why?

 

[BackAgain]

The record of the debate in 1866 is illuminating. When Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment) was asked what the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, he responded: “That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means.” (Emphasis added.) Only U.S. citizens owe “complete allegiance” to the United States. Everyone present in the United States is subject to its laws (and hence its “jurisdiction” in a general sense), but only citizens can be drafted into the armed forces of the United States, or prosecuted for treason if they take up arms against it.

Senator Howard agreed with Trumbull’s explanation, saying:

I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, . . . ; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

What Did the 14th Amendment Congress Think about "Birthright Citizenship"? - Mark Pulliam

Candidate Donald Trump’s recent proclamation that he is opposed to so-called “birthright citizenship” for the offspring of illegal aliens born in the United States has, like many of his campaign statements, set off hysterical paroxysms of outrage and protest. I do not support Donald Trump for...

lawliberty.org

“This exchange supports very strongly the conclusion that the Citizenship Clause was intended to mean the same as the Civil Rights Act of 1866—excluding children born in the United States to foreign nationals (that is, to resident aliens).”

Id.

 

[BackAgain]

Why?

Because — as you already know — it asks an absolutely irrelevant question.

 

[Unkotare]

Every US citizen reading this, unless naturalized, is a citizen because they were born in the US.

 

[Unkotare]

Because — as you already know — it asks an absolutely irrelevant question.

Making the thoughts of constituents known is hardly irrelevant.

 

[BackAgain]

Making the thoughts of constituents known is hardly irrelevant.

It is to this discussion.

 

[Unkotare]

It is to this discussion.

How so?

 

[BackAgain]

How so?

Another silly question.

If I have written my congressman or if I haven’t written my congressman, either way, that tidbit of information has zero connection to this debate.

 

[Concerned American]

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.

It is clear to me that the foreign "guest" is under the jurisdiction of their home country and that jurisdiction would be attached to whatever spawn was produced by the guest.

 

[BackAgain]

It is clear to me that the foreign "guest" is under the jurisdiction of their home country and that jurisdiction would be attached to whatever spawn was produced by the guest.

Yes.

While it is true that, of course, an alien here illegally still comes under our jurisdiction for various purposes (such as for prosecution for crimes), it is also plainly true that such a person owes absolutely no “allegiance” to our government or our nation.

Some aliens here illegally may feel some allegiance to the USA. But it can’t be tested for verification. Other than the obviously necessary extension of our criminal court (and some civil court) jurisdiction over them and their behaviors here, what allegiance does any illegal alien owe to America?

Obviously, none.

 

[Unkotare]

...

If I have written my congressman or if I haven’t written my congressman,....

Which is it?

 

[Unkotare]

It is clear to me that the foreign "guest" is under the jurisdiction of their home country and that jurisdiction would be attached to whatever spawn was produced by the guest.

Are you the "spawn" produced by someone?

 

[BackAgain]

Which is it?

Still irrelevant. So irrelevant in fact that you can’t even explain what possible difference it would make to this discussion.

 

[Unkotare]

Still irrelevant. So irrelevant in fact that you can’t even explain what possible difference it would make to this discussion.

So, you're just shooting your mouth off to no effect. Nothing you have to say has any relevance.

 

[BackAgain]

So, you're just shooting your mouth off to no effect. Nothing you have to say has any relevance.

No. You’re asking silly questions and you can’t refute my point that your question is completely irrelevant.

Try again. Explain exactly how your question makes any difference to this discussion.

Are you claiming that an opinion offered in a message board discussion is only “shooting one’s mouth off” unless one has first written about it to his or her Congressperson?

Are you gonna pretend that when you have offered opinions, here, you’ve always first (very dutifully) written your Congressperson, first?

 

[Unkotare]

No. You’re asking silly questions ...

And you are avoiding questions.

 

[BackAgain]

And you are avoiding questions.

Wrong. I refuse to lend any credence to your irrelevant deflection effort.

Also, of course, you continue to evade the point about how your question makes any difference.

And you don’t answer my questions, of course.

 

[Unkotare]

....

Are you claiming that an opinion offered in a message board discussion is only “shooting one’s mouth off” unless one has first written about it to his or her Congressperson?
...

If someone does nothing but whine on a website, it's just shooting one's mouth off.