Is there a politician with the balls to lobby for a rewrite of the 14th / the anchor baby statute?

[otto105]

Do you see the word "slave" there in section 4. You lied about the Amendment not mentioning African Americans. You're the ******* baby. Lying shithead.

Section 4 deals with the loss of slave labor as a debt claim, not citizenship.

 

[BackAgain]

What field? Far right authoritarian **** nuttery?

OttoBaronofDoucheville:

read. Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

Try to educate yourself.

 

[otto105]

You wouldn’t recognize it anyway. You’re simply a non-functioning left-wing extremist “brain” in a skin-suit of crap.

I don't recognize far right **** nuttery as a legitimate field. You're correct.

 

[BS Filter]

Section 4 deals with the loss of slave labor as a debt claim, not citizenship.

Oh, so all descendants of slaves aren't included in this Amendment. That makes you an even bigger liar.

 

[BackAgain]

The baby born on US soil is a US citizen.. Otherwise your faulty understanding of the law would mean the baby had NO COUNTRY.

If the mother is in the US, the US has jurisdiction over her too. The US has jurisdiction over everyone on US soil unless they are a foreign diplomat attached to a diplomatic mission. The birth doesn't make the mother a US citizen. You would have a hell of a time in Law 101.

The faulty understanding is yours;

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

Fuethermore, my correct understanding absolutely does not yield your faulty conclusion. A pregnant Canuck sneaks across our northern border and has her baby in the USA. Assuming that baby isn’t automatically granted US citizenship, because your faulty understanding turns out to not be the law, the child would still be the child of a Canadian citizen so would still have (and properly so) Canadian citizenship.

 

[otto105]

OttoBaronofDoucheville:

read. Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

Try to educate yourself.

I sorry, but I couldn't get thru the stupidity of von olfstudsky's strawman assertions to make it thru the second paragraph.

Christ dude, stop with the far right **** nuttery bullshit.

 

[surada]

The faulty understanding is yours;

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

Fuethermore, my correct understanding absolutely does not yield your faulty conclusion. A pregnant Canuck sneaks across our northern border and has her baby in the USA. Assuming that baby isn’t automatically granted US citizenship, because your faulty understanding turns out to not be the law, the child would still be the child of a Canadian citizen so would still have (and properly so) Canadian citizenship.

The baby isn't GRANTED US citizenship.. US citizenship is automatic because the baby was born on US soil.. and yes the baby would still have parents who were Canadian citizens.

 

[BackAgain]

While this Mexican citizen is in the US Mexico doesn't have jurisdiction.. That's why we have extradition agreements. NO FOREIGN country's laws have jurisdiction in the US.

You are stubborn and stupid.. You should be able to understand this instead of arguing about it.

Notice your own ongoing faulty reasoning. What I said was that Mexico could still claim jurisdiction over the illegal alien.

It is certainly true that Mexico wouldn’t have any claim to try the illegal alien for a crime committed on our soil. But that same illegal alien might be wanted in Mexico and Mexico could claim jurisdiction over him to secure his return. So, you see, he is still subject to Mexican jurisdiction.

I get it. You consider yourself the sole authority on all things law related. I don’t know your qualifications. I also don’t care.

It suffices to note that you are not, in fact, correct merely because you have come to one understanding. This is the nature of many legal disputes. One side sees things one way. Another side sees it differently. You can earnestly believe you have it “right.” But you might still be wrong.

 

[BS Filter]

I sorry, but I couldn't get thru the stupidity of von olfstudsky's strawman assertions to make it thru the second paragraph.

Christ dude, stop with the far right **** nuttery bullshit.

You lied

I sorry, but I couldn't get thru the stupidity of von olfstudsky's strawman assertions to make it thru the second paragraph.

Christ dude, stop with the far right **** nuttery bullshit.

Where's your reply to post 304?

 

[BackAgain]

I sorry, but I couldn't get thru the stupidity of von olfstudsky's strawman assertions to make it thru the second paragraph.

Christ dude, stop with the far right **** nuttery bullshit.

You couldn’t make it through grade school.

 

[otto105]

Partly true. That doesn’t mean that Mexico cannot claim to have jurisdiction over a Mexican citizen. I don’t know if you have any familiarity with the legal notions of “owing allegiance to” the other (foreign) nation. But it would help you if you’d commence some study.

And, of course, you apparently don’t realize that people born here can very well also be citizens of other nations.

I'm sorry officer, but olf von odelsky said that I could rob that bank and get away with if I thought that I was a citizen of Poland.

 

[surada]

Partly true. That doesn’t mean that Mexico cannot claim to have jurisdiction over a Mexican citizen. I don’t know if you have any familiarity with the legal notions of “owing allegiance to” the other (foreign) nation. But it would help you if you’d commence some study.

And, of course, you apparently don’t realize that people born here can very well also be citizens of other nations.

Some countries permit dual citizenship , some do not. But, if you are born on US soil, you are a US citizen. Further, you cannot relinquish your US citizenship until you are 21 years old and give testimony before a judge. So, if the parents are Mexican citizens they cannot relinquish the baby's US citizenship.

 

[surada]

You couldn’t make it through grade school.

You couldn't make it thru pre-law.

 

[BackAgain]

The baby isn't GRANTED US citizenship.. US citizenship is automatic because the baby was born on US soil.. and yes the baby would still have parents who were Canadian citizens.

You’re right. That child isn’t granted US citizenship merely by virtue of the happenstance of being born here. That’s the point. Whether being born here is all that’s required to be a natural born US citizen is the question. It is not the conclusion.

(Your conclusion is that being born here does confer automatic citizenship. I doubt that. It could be true. But in the words of the old song, “it ain’t necessarily so.”)

 

[BackAgain]

Some countries permit dual citizenship , some do not. But, if you are born on US soil, you are a US citizen. Further, you cannot relinquish your US citizenship until you are 21 years old and give testimony before a judge. So, if the parents are Mexican citizens they cannot relinquish the baby's US citizenship.

Nope. That is your conclusion. But it isn’t necessarily a correct understanding of the law.

 

[BackAgain]

You couldn't make it thru pre-law.

I may have been admitted before you were even born. Your arrogance is amusing. But yet again, your fervent belief in the rectitude of your beliefs simply doesn’t make them true.

 

[Unkotare]

Nope. That is your conclusion. But it isn’t necessarily a correct understanding of the law.

Are you on medication?

 

[Ringtone]

Nope. You didn't read my link. Here.

14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - original intent - US Constitution

14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - original intent - US Constitution, apportionment, slavery slaves citizenship vote

www.14thamendment.us

Per your excerpt:

In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case, once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.​

And therein lies the rub. Your source is mostly spot-on, but even this excerpt confounds the matter. While it was not the Court's intent to confer birthright citizenship on persons born of illegal aliens, the fact that it imposed the construct of birthright citizenship in the first place did not strengthen the original intent of the 14th Amendment at all. Birthright citizenship was never original intent!

 

[bodecea]

ii

Wrong. To give full citizenship rights to descendants of former slaves. There were three Amendments passed after slavery was abolished to give full citizenship rights to former slaves and their descendants.

Where in the 14th Amendment does it state it only applies to former slaves and their descendants?

 

[surada]

Notice your own ongoing faulty reasoning. What I said was that Mexico could still claim jurisdiction over the illegal alien.

It is certainly true that Mexico wouldn’t have any claim to try the illegal alien for a crime committed on our soil. But that same illegal alien might be wanted in Mexico and Mexico could claim jurisdiction over him to secure his return. So, you see, he is still subject to Mexican jurisdiction.

I get it. You consider yourself the sole authority on all things law related. I don’t know your qualifications. I also don’t care.

It suffices to note that you are not, in fact, correct merely because you have come to one understanding. This is the nature of many legal disputes. One side sees things one way. Another side sees it differently. You can earnestly believe you have it “right.” But you might still be wrong.

When Mexico claims jurisdiction over a Mexican in the US they file extradition papers because they have NO jurisdiction in the US.

Call your local law school and tell them you know better.