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

[BackAgain]

The TRumpies throw in allegiance... Natural born citizens have no test of allegiance.

First of all kid, this isn’t a Trump vs Brandon issue.

Second of all, the concept of “allegiance” to the nation precedes the 14th Amendment itself. Pretty sure Donald Trump wasn’t yet around. (Even Brandon may have been young at the time.)

Third of all, you’re incredibly lame.

Fourth of all, I didn’t say diddly shit about a test of allegiance.

Lastly, did you happen to notice the part where it was correctly noted that the SCOTUS HAS NEVER passed upon the question of whether the U.S.-born children of aliens who aren’t here legally or who aren’t lawful permanent residents here are given citizenship status at birth here? I ask because, for some reason, you failed to address that point.

 

[surada]

First of all kid, this isn’t a Trump vs Brandon issue.

Second of all, the concept of “allegiance” to the nation precedes the 14th Amendment itself. Pretty sure Donald Trump wasn’t yet around. (Even Brandon may have been young at the time.)

Third of all, you’re incredibly lame.

Fourth of all, I didn’t say diddly shit about a test of allegiance.

Lastly, did you happen to notice the part where it was correctly noted that the SCOTUS HAS NEVER passed upon the question of whether the U.S.-born children of aliens who aren’t here legally or who aren’t lawful permanent residents here are given citizenship status at birth here? I ask because, for some reason, you failed to address that point.

Let's try this: There are two kinds of US citizensip. natural born and naturalized. Naturalized US citizens take an oath of allegiance. Natural born take no such oath.

 

[BackAgain]

Let's try this: There are two kinds of US citizensip. natural born and naturalized. Naturalized US citizens take an oath of allegiance. Natural born take no such oath.

Let’s say this: irrelevant.

Once again, I didn’t say diddly shit about a test of allegiance.

 

[surada]

Let’s say this: irrelevant.

Once again, I didn’t say diddly shit about a test of allegiance.

The clap trap from Heritage talks about allegiance. When a person is on US soil they are NOT subject to any foreign power. Only US law is in effect in the US.

"Based on the legislative history at the time, the 14th Amendment’s framers intended to give citizenship only to those who owed their allegiance to the United States and were subject to its complete jurisdiction, primarily the newly freed slaves, who were lawful permanent residents.

Owing allegiance to the United States and being subject to its complete jurisdiction means being “not subject to any foreign power” and excludes those only temporarily present in the country. "

 

[BackAgain]

The clap trap from Heritage talks about allegiance. When a person is on US soil they are NOT subject to any foreign power. Only US law is in effect in the US.

"Based on the legislative history at the time, the 14th Amendment’s framers intended to give citizenship only to those who owed their allegiance to the United States and were subject to its complete jurisdiction, primarily the newly freed slaves, who were lawful permanent residents.

Owing allegiance to the United States and being subject to its complete jurisdiction means being “not subject to any foreign power” and excludes those only temporarily present in the country. "

Repeating yourself yet again doesn’t support your already refuted assertions.

 

[surada]

Repeating yourself yet again doesn’t support your already refuted assertions.

You should ask a lawyer or perhaps a law professor. You have a blind spot here. You haven't refuted anything.. There are only two types of US citizenship.. Natural born or naturalized.

 

[BackAgain]

You should ask a lawyer or perhaps a law professor. You have a blind spot here. You haven't refuted anything.. There are only two types of US citizenship.. Natural born or naturalized.

I asked me. I provided the correct answer. The blind spot is yours.

We aren’t talking about naturalization.

The sole topic is about so-called “anchor” babies. YOU have repeatedly said that all people born on US soil “are” American citizens. I have indeed refuted that. You won’t even acknowledge that the SCOTUS has never ruled on that precise issue.

 

[surada]

I asked me. I provided the correct answer. The blind spot is yours.

We aren’t talking about naturalization.

The sole topic is about so-called “anchor” babies. YOU have repeatedly said that all people born on US soil “are” American citizens. I have indeed refuted that. You won’t even acknowledge that the SCOTUS has never ruled on that precise issue.

If you are born on US soil, you are a natural born US citizen.. What other country has jurisdiction in the US? Can you name another country that has jurisdiction in the US?

 

[surada]

Natural Citizens
Being a natural citizen means that a person is automatically eligible for citizenship due to the circumstances of birth or parentage. There are several types of natural born citizens.

Born on U.S. soil. If a child is born inside the United States or its territories, that child is a citizen automatically. It doesn’t matter if the parents are citizens or not. Children born in the U.S. who then leave the country for many years do not lose their citizenship, no matter how long they live elsewhere. This rule about citizenship does not include children born to government officials or diplomats from other countries; children born to them are not U.S. citizens.

Born of U.S. parents living abroad. If one or both of a child’s parents are U.S. citizens (who meet certain requirements such as residence in the U.S. or other factors), the child can acquire U.S. citizenship. The parents must apply to the embassy or consulate for a Consular Report of a Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States. Once that is issued, the child is a citizen and can obtain a passport.

Adopted overseas. A foreign-born child who is adopted by U.S. parents automatically and legally becomes a U.S. citizen after being legally adopted by the parents or after living with them in the U.S. for two years.

 

[BackAgain]

If you are born on US soil, you are a natural born US citizen.. What other country has jurisdiction in the US? Can you name another country that has jurisdiction in the US?

Wow. Sad, who said that the jurisdiction has to be IN the US. I’ve already explained all this to you. Don’t be so deliberately obtuse.

If a Mexican citizen is alleged to have murdered another Mexican citizen (a) in Mexico, then the Mexican government does have jurisdiction over his case even if he happens to be hiding in the US. Or (b) it may be that Mexico CLAIMS jurisdiction over a Mexican citizen for the murder (or assault or whatever) of some other Mexican citizen in the USA. Maybe it isn’t clear cut that Mexico has such jurisdiction even if it’s own laws say it does, but maybe it does. Either way, the point is: Mexico has a claim to the allegiance of their own citizen and a claim or claims of jurisdiction over him.

in a very similar way, the Newborn child of a foreigner who got born on our side of the border may have some allegiance owed to that foreign government of which it is also a citizen at birth.

you are starting to finally get it, aren’t you?

 

[surada]

Wow. Sad, who said that the jurisdiction has to be IN the US. I’ve already explained all this to you. Don’t be so deliberately obtuse.

If a Mexican citizen is alleged to have murdered another Mexican citizen (a) in Mexico, then the Mexican government does have jurisdiction over his case even if he happens to be hiding in the US. Or (b) it may be that Mexico CLAIMS jurisdiction over a Mexican citizen for the murder (or assault or whatever) of some other Mexican citizen in the USA. Maybe it isn’t clear cut that Mexico has such jurisdiction even if it’s own laws say it does, but maybe it does. Either way, the point is: Mexico has a claim to the allegiance of their own citizen and a claim or claims of jurisdiction over him.

in a very similar way, the Newborn child of a foreigner who got born on our side of the border may have some allegiance owed to that foreign government of which it is also a citizen at birth.

you are starting to finally get it, aren’t you?

Now you are talking gobbledegook. Mexico has no jurisdiction over a Mexican national in the US. Mexican law has NO standing in the US.

Mexico would ask the US to extradite a citizen of Mexico who was hiding from a murder charge in the US.

 

[BackAgain]

Now you are talking gobbledegook. Mexico has no jurisdiction over a Mexican national in the US. Mexican law has NO standing in the US.

Mexico would ask the US to extradite a citizen of Mexico who was hiding from a murder charge in the US.

I won’t bore you with how wrong you are. But you’re cute in your abundant ignorance.

 

[surada]

I won’t bore you with how wrong you are. But you’re cute in your abundant ignorance.

Promise me you'll call a lawyer tomorrow and ask.

 

[BackAgain]

Now you are talking gobbledegook. Mexico has no jurisdiction over a Mexican national in the US. Mexican law has NO standing in the US.

Mexico would ask the US to extradite a citizen of Mexico who was hiding from a murder charge in the US.

Of course they would ask for the US to extradite. jeez are you slow. And the basis for the extradition request would include the claim that Mexico had jurisdiction over its own citizen and over the facts of the legal matter.

really. Your ignorance is astounding.

 

[BackAgain]

Promise me you'll call a lawyer tomorrow and ask.

I already asked me. I confirmed it.

you remain quite slow.

 

[surada]

I already asked me. I confirmed it.

you remain quite slow.

You aren't a lawyer.

 

[IM2]

Still clinging to the patently absurd claim that Trump supporters are stupid. Whatever gives you that warm fuzzy, it sure beats admitting you are wrong.

You are stupid. Look at this thread and what you're talking about. Hell if this was really applied as you want it, everybody but the Native Americans have got to go.

******* idiots.

 

[MarathonMike]

You are stupid. Look at this thread and what you're talking about. Hell if this was really applied as you want it, everybody but the Native Americans have got to go.

******* idiots.

Angry Black man digging deep to find reasons to throw insults. Not the mark of intelligence. I hope you are taking meds for your high blood pressure.

 

[Ringtone]

No, you’re the only ones pushing an anti-immigrant screed.

Any reading of the amendment is clear on the born right subject.

First, I'm not pushing an anti-immigrant screed. What the hell is that supposed to mean anyway?

Second, what the hell is a "born right subject"? Would that be a person born with ten fingers and toes?

LOL!

Third, the mere reading of the Amendment is only clear to those who KNOW the pertinent natural, territorial, statutory, and case law, as well as the historical development of the same. You don't. I do.

You and surada, especially, have unwittingly contradicted yourselves repeatedly. Unkotare, who should know better, is unwisely disagreeing with me on this thread when in fact he hasn't any real first-hand knowledge on the matter either.

​

C_Clayton_Jones is prattling his usual pablum sans any real knowledge about the historical development of U.S. jurisdiction for the purpose of citizenship/nationality vis-à-vis the constitutional construct of natural-born citizenship of original intent.​

The thrust of BS Filter's observations stems from the emboldened in the above. BS Filter is neither denying nor ignorant of the wider constitutional applications of the 14th. C_Clayton_Jone is just throwing shade on BS Filter with his ho-hum regurgitation 14th-Amendment factoids.

That is to say, BS Filter's observation regarding the incongruity between original intent and contemporary practice per the gaping hole in prevailing in immigration law, primarily due to the injudicious Wong Kim Ark decision, is spot on.

Unlike you, surada, Unkotare, C_Clayton_Jone, and others, I recognize that.

But, then, I am an expert on citizenship and nationality law--steeped in the pertinent natural, territorial, statutory, and case law, as well as in the historical development of the same. Once again: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles. I'm the author, Michael Rawlings, a.k.a., Ringtone.

As for BackAgain and Indeependent, they're not pretending to be experts; rather, they're wise and smart enough to recognize that all of you are pretending to know things you don't. How? They readily recognize that your guff is riddled with non sequiturs and logical inconsistencies.

They smell the stink leaking from your soiled undies.

 

[Ringtone]

You idiot... Everyone on US soil is subject to US jurisdiction .. Who's laws do you think supercede US law in the US?

Shut the hell up, you disingenuous little prick of a man! The United States' jurisdiction per the general law of the land and the United States' jurisdiction per citizenship/nationality law are not the same thing, which is what you're stupidly implying here. Everybody on this thread with integrity sees right through your stinking ass.

Once again, you haven't the faintest clue as to whom you're talking: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles. I'm the author, Michael Rawlings, a.k.a., Ringtone.