Legislative Proposal : Children Born Of Illegal Immigrants To Receive Citizenship Of Mother

[Correll]

" Reconsideration Of An Invalid Direction "

* Complexities Of Framing Words *

Life would be a lot easier and quieter if the GOP would just set about to repealing the 14th amendment

The us 14th amendment is well formed and does not need to be repealed .

The us 14th amendment relates an underlying foundation of a state that its jurisdiction is established for the benefit of citizens and it endows equal protection to those within its jurisdiction that technically does not apply to sojourning without legal immigrant status .

As such , the country of origin is responsible for issuing retorts or reprise for its citizens sojourning without legal immigrant status , hence not technically within us jurisdiction .

Equal protection is why you either get citizenship through birth or you do not. I derive my citizenship the exact same way as an anchor baby gets theirs. Change the law in any way, and you have 14th amendment equal protection problems.

Your mom was not an American?

 

[kaz]

Citizenship is defined by the country at hand. Whether or not a child is a citizen of another country is dependent only on what that country recognizes. America can't legally declare someone a citizen of another country.

True, but not really material. All it would mean would be say the mother is from Mexico and the father from Guatemala, we should send the child to Mexico with the mother

 

[kaz]

" Reconsideration Of An Invalid Direction "

* Complexities Of Framing Words *

Life would be a lot easier and quieter if the GOP would just set about to repealing the 14th amendment

The us 14th amendment is well formed and does not need to be repealed .

The us 14th amendment relates an underlying foundation of a state that its jurisdiction is established for the benefit of citizens and it endows equal protection to those within its jurisdiction that technically does not apply to sojourning without legal immigrant status .

As such , the country of origin is responsible for issuing retorts or reprise for its citizens sojourning without legal immigrant status , hence not technically within us jurisdiction .

Equal protection is why you either get citizenship through birth or you do not. I derive my citizenship the exact same way as an anchor baby gets theirs. Change the law in any way, and you have 14th amendment equal protection problems.

You probably got US citizenship because both your parents were US citizens. If you had been born in France, you'd still be a US citizen.

As MJ said, get that shit out of here

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The thread premise is ignorant idiocy and will never happen.

But the fear, bigotry, racism, and hate that motivated the "proposal" is real, and manifest as a danger to our rights and protected liberties.

 

[Claudette]

Life would be a lot easier and quieter if the GOP would just set about to repealing the 14th amendment

Yup. That amendment was put in so the children of ex slaves would be recognized as American citizens. Its not needed anymore.

No way should the kids of illegal aliens or from some other country be born in this country and be declared American citizens just because they are born here.

That amendment needs to be revamped or done away with.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Secretary Of Labor Determines Immigration Totals Manages Social Dependency Floods "

* Espionage Propensities Protected Intellectual Commerce *

The obvious problem with that decree, of course, is that birthright citizenship is the law of the land and has been bestowed in that manner for the last 120 years. Is that record of history now altered and erased by your proclamation? I believe NOT!
You're still pissing into the wind and still getting wet, kid!

The citizenship by birth is not being retracted from law .

The discretion to allow migrants by means of legal processes is wholly contingent upon citizen discretion , and a "within jurisdiction " clause identifies that article .

A requirement to register for travel is an underpinning of the " within jurisdiction " clause .

A license to travel could stipulate an agreement with the mother that any child born of her as a non citizen would be given citizenship from maternal country of origin as a contingency .

The us 14th amendment does not need to be modified , as it is well phrased with implications establishing wrights that are clearly inferred and justifiable .

* More Syntax Complications Before Hew *

There is a distinction between equal protection and equal endowment ; therefore , stipulate between equal protection of negative liberty versus equal endowment of positive liberty , as citizenship goes in a the category of positive liberty , which does not include a necessary obligation to issue an equal endowment to non citizens .

* Bloated With Claustrophobia *

The state representatives of individuals are responsible to infrastructure policy for facilitating commerce that is optimally advantageous for the collective of citizens , and part of that policy determines stipulations on the volume of annual permanent legal immigrants based within job skill classifications as well as codependent social welfare consequences from market demands .

When was the last time us secretary of labor commented on the volume of 1.4 million annual permanent migrants to the us , arriving in some form of first come first served family reunification , irrespective of labor class or capacity of demand for traded skils .

* Self Destroyed Paranoia *

On a wild tangent , what if sojourners as hostile agents from foreign potentates could give birth to children as citizens to be reared as informants for privileged information ?

 

[Correll]

The thread premise is ignorant idiocy and will never happen.

But the fear, bigotry, racism, and hate that motivated the "proposal" is real, and manifest as a danger to our rights and protected liberties.

Says the loser who can't make a single argument against the proposal.


HInt: Name calling is not a valid point.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

" Secretary Of Labor Determines Immigration Totals Manages Social Dependency Floods "

* Espionage Propensities Protected Intellectual Commerce *

The citizenship by birth is not being retracted from law .

The discretion to allow migrants by means of legal processes is wholly contingent upon citizen discretion , and a "within jurisdiction " clause identifies that article .

A requirement to register for travel is an underpinning of the " within jurisdiction " clause .

A license to travel could stipulate an agreement with the mother that any child born of her as a non citizen would be given citizenship from maternal country of origin as a contingency .

The us 14th amendment does not need to be modified , as it is well phrased with implications establishing wrights that are clearly inferred and justifiable .

* More Syntax Complications Before Hew *

There is a distinction between equal protection and equal endowment ; therefore , stipulate between equal protection of negative liberty versus equal endowment of positive liberty , as citizenship goes in a the category of positive liberty , which does not include a necessary obligation to issue an equal endowment to non citizens .

* Bloated With Claustrophobia *

The state representatives of individuals are responsible to infrastructure policy for facilitating commerce that is optimally advantageous for the collective of citizens , and part of that policy determines stipulations on the volume of annual permanent legal immigrants based within job skill classifications as well as codependent social welfare consequences from market demands .

When was the last time us secretary of labor commented on the volume of 1.4 million annual permanent migrants to the us , arriving in some form of first come first served family reunification , irrespective of labor class or capacity of demand for traded skils .

* Self Destroyed Paranoia *

On a wild tangent , what if sojourners as hostile agents from foreign potentates could give birth to children as citizens to be reared as informants for privileged information ?

The citizenship by birth is not being retracted from law .

"Retracted"? You negate your own "thesis" by employing that verb in that sentence and making word salad sans the damn cheese dressing, lad .

Instead of 'retracting' or withdrawing from established law which didn't exist at the time and being there was great ambiguity from a unique set of circumstance which had not been before the bar before the 1890's, the lower Courts and finally SCOTUS drew UPON the laws, precedents and the and the highest law of the land, the US Constitution in the landmark decision of US v. Wong Kim Ark, your "revision" notwithstanding! That is the purpose of Judicial Review, which is also the check and balance on the Legislative and the Executive branches.

In particular, A.J. Gray wrote in the decision at least nine references to Justice Story's Commentaries, four references to Blackstone's Commentaries and another 65 or more to English Common Law references as Justices of the High Court are wont to do to clarify a point or two of law. And that says nothing of references to the points of Constitutional law such as Article I, § 2, Article II, § 1, Amendment V, Amendment XIV and Amendment XV. Gray also referenced Smith v. Alabama (1888) in his decision in Wong.

In Smith v. Alabama, A.J. Matthews wrote the following:

"There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England, as adopted by the several states each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591....

There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. The code of constitutional and statutory construction which, therefore, is gradually formed by the judgments of this court, in the application of the constitution and the laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof, has for its basis so much of the common law as may be implied in the subject, and constitutes a common law resting on national authority. Moore v. U. S., 91 U. S. 270."
~~ SMITH v. STATE OF ALABAMA. ~~[emphasis added]

For 120 years, birthright citizenship has been the LAW OF THE LAND, whether you are capable of comprehending that concept and the process or not. Stamping your feet like a spoiled child and screaming, Tis'snottt, tis'snott rather than actually creating a valid counter argument based on actual Constitutional principles just a'in't ta gonna'er git 'er done Son!

So for the third time now, you are trying to fabricate out of soiled cloth that which has no case in law that you can display or even reference to support your failed thesis. If you want to wish upon a star, go for it Jiminy Cricket, but don't expect every one to be as gullible and willing to swallow your fantasies based on your sophistries.

It's time for you to cease your gadfly ways and do some bloody research delving into the law as it pertains to this topic, and set aside that Anti-federalist claptrap; they lost the argument in Philadelphia 231 years ago. You're still pissing into the wind and now you're dripping all over the carpet, kid!

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Compensating For A Lack Of Technical Political Science Details "

* False Dilemma *

The citizenship by birth is not being retracted from law .

"Retracted"? You negate your own "thesis" by employing that verb in that sentence and making word salad sans the damn cheese dressing, lad .

A word that means to take back or remove from implementation is not a logical contradiction and please brush up on List of fallacies - Wikipedia .

* Paper Chase Cut *

Instead of 'retracting' or withdrawing from established law which didn't exist at the time and being there was great ambiguity from a unique set of circumstance which had not been before the bar before the 1890's, the lower Courts and finally SCOTUS drew UPON the laws, precedents and the and the highest law of the land, the US Constitution in the landmark decision of US v. Wong Kim Ark, your "revision" notwithstanding! That is the purpose of Judicial Review, which is also the check and balance on the Legislative and the Executive branches.

To challenge the interpretation introduced in this thread one would have to dismiss that US v. Wong Kim Ark ruling was consistent with us constitution to grant citizenship for satisfying a classification for a category of " within jurisdiction " , by virtue of a contractual permission to maintain residence as workers within us territories .

Or , one would have to dismiss that had Wong Kim Ark not satisfied a classification for category of " within jurisdiction " , by virtue of not having a contractual agreement to maintain residence as workers within us territories , then a similar ruling to award citizenship of their child would not have occurred .

There is nothing disingenuous or errant is understanding the premise , from which ensues acts to implement a more constitutionally consistent method of jurisprudence for us 14th amendment .

* Party Platform Inevitability *

For 120 years, birthright citizenship has been the LAW OF THE LAND, whether you are capable of comprehending that concept and the process or not. Stamping your feet like a spoiled child and screaming, Tis'snottt, tis'snott rather than actually creating a valid counter argument based on actual Constitutional principles just a'in't ta gonna'er git 'er done Son!
So for the third time now, you are trying to fabricate out of soiled cloth that which has no case in law that you can display or even reference to support your failed thesis. If you want to wish upon a star, go for it Jiminy Cricket, but don't expect every one to be as gullible and willing to swallow your fantasies based on your sophistries.

That there is " no case in law " would not preclude that an issuance of legislative writ to enforce the premise presented here in this thread would establish " case in law " .

* Individualism Versus Collectivism Means And Extremes Paradigm *

It's time for you to cease your gadfly ways and do some bloody research delving into the law as it pertains to this topic, and set aside that Anti-federalist claptrap; they lost the argument in Philadelphia 231 years ago. You're still pissing into the wind and now you're dripping all over the carpet, kid!

My end would be towards establishing individualism and , depending upon the issue , those position may include perspectives on anti-federalism and on anti-statistism ( anti-statealism ) .

Unlike libertarian ethos that stipulates negative wrights entirely , which divests its allegiances from any collective authority other than its own self autonomy , those stipulations specifically with respect to government provide negative liberty from government , but it does not provide a means for positive wrights to enforce that individuals possess negative liberty from other individuals or to provided positive liberty through government .

The purpose of collectivism is devised with a goal for improving ones odds for survival and hearth , that includes positive wrights in addition with negative wrights , which necessarily includes some degree of federalism / anti-federalism and statistism / anti-statistism .

* Extended Fourteenth Amendment Analysis *

US 14th Amendment Establishes Negative Liberty of Individuals to Acquire Abortion

 

[Dana7360]

But we can declare them not a citizen of ours!

No you can't. The constitution clearly says that everyone born here in America is an American citizen.

It also says everyone has equal rights with our government.

It's a violation of our constitution to try to make anyone born here not a citizen of America.

On top of that, America has no authority to declare anyone a citizen of any other nation. America has no authority to issue a birth certificate to anyone other than an American birth certificate.

You really don't understand our constitution and what America is all about do you?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Against Advocates Four Absence Inn Self Defense Of Nation States "

* Attention Catch Up On Comments *

But we can declare them not a citizen of ours!

No you can't. The constitution clearly says that everyone born here in America is an American citizen.
It also says everyone has equal rights with our government.
It's a violation of our constitution to try to make anyone born here not a citizen of America.
On top of that, America has no authority to declare anyone a citizen of any other nation. America has no authority to issue a birth certificate to anyone other than an American birth certificate.
You really don't understand our constitution and what America is all about do you?

America does have an option to enter into an agreement with foreign countries that children of foreign nationals traveling in us , without legal migrant status , will receive citizenship of the mother , by virtue of not being entitled to full privileges ( equal protection \/\ equal endowment ) including an entitlement to citizenship for their children born in the us .

The us 14th amendment of the constitution stipulates " within jurisdiction " in its phraseology ; and , any competent retort would address implications of that article .

Contending that blind ignorance be issued towards the implications of " within jurisdiction " , as a distinct criteria applied to citizenship , simply so that disconcerted feelings of dissenters would not be hurt , is quashed .

* Trying Knot Two Ignore Agreement Terms And Conditions *

The us 14th amendment specifies that one is a citizen at birth to the state in which one was born , just as one is a citizen of a country at birth ; thus , how would one go about getting dual citizenship for different us states , just in case states begin to refuse equal endowment to its non citizens such as not extending state social subsistence to them ?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The us 14th amendment specifies that one is a citizen at birth to the state in which one was born....

Amendment XIV § 1, Clause 1;
"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." ~~ 14th Amendment ~~ [Emphasis added]

There is a huge difference in YOUR statement directly above and what the Amendment actually states. Obviously a person like myself who was born in Nebraska and now living in Arizona, is no longer a citizen of Nebraska. You're in gross error yet again.

The us 14th amendment of the constitution stipulates " within jurisdiction " in its phraseology ; and , any competent retort would address implications of that article .

"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ~~ Ibid ~~ [Emphasis added]

Again, you misquote the Amendment for your own purposes of misdirection. The Amendment does NOT stipulate the phrase "within jurisdiction" anywhere in its five Sections. Therefore, the only conclusion to be drawn is that your assertion is false and you err yet again!

Contending that blind ignorance be issued towards the implications of " within jurisdiction " , as a distinct criteria applied to citizenship , simply so that disconcerted feelings of dissenters would not be hurt , is quashed .

Obviously no foundation laid for this additional fallacious assertion given the claimed quote of "within jurisdiction" from Amendment XIV has been shown to be non-existent and the closing snark is what is being quashed. Oh, and your erred a third time making it three for three in the fail column!

The us 14th amendment specifies that one is a citizen at birth to the state in which one was born , just as one is a citizen of a country at birth ; thus , how would one go about getting dual citizenship for different us states , just in case states begin to refuse equal endowment to its non citizens such as not extending state social subsistence to them ?

Dual citizenship is a non-starter. The several States do not have authority to convey/grant citizenship. See Amendment X and attempt to locate in the Constitution where that power to grant citizenship is enumerated or implied anywhere, which isn't now superseded, is granted to the several States. Why is one required to go to places like a Federal Court House to complete the process of acquiring citizenship in the United States?

Your premise is smoke in the wind and truly displays your ignorance of history, civics and the Constitution! You're a wordy, supercilious fraud still pissing into the wind getting soaked, kid! Finish high school and get some experience under your belt by living about another decade, and for God's sake get thee to College and learn how to write proper prose!

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Addressing The Tireless But Inane "

* Argumentative Absurdity *

The us 14th amendment specifies that one is a citizen at birth to the state in which one was born....

Amendment XIV § 1, Clause 1;
"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." ~~ 14th Amendment ~~ [Emphasis added]
There is a huge difference in YOUR statement directly above and what the Amendment actually states. Obviously a person like myself who was born in Nebraska and now living in Arizona, is no longer a citizen of Nebraska. You're in gross error yet again.

Just because you have a prejudicial bias against accepting an acuity for literacy does not mean the statements are not present , or that their implications are not clear and evident , or that the statements are ignored in common law .
Within the context of greek city states , a premise for citizenship of a state is absolutely plausible .

The us 14th amendment of the constitution stipulates " within jurisdiction " in its phraseology ; and , any competent retort would address implications of that article .

"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ~~ Ibid ~~ [Emphasis added]
Again, you misquote the Amendment for your own purposes of misdirection. The Amendment does NOT stipulate the phrase "within jurisdiction" anywhere in its five Sections. Therefore, the only conclusion to be drawn is that your assertion is false and you err yet again!

A paraphrase of " within its jurisdiction " as " within jurisdiction " is hardly a logical fallacy .

A due process clause is a " protection " clause that is analogous with negative liberty ( to act freely , independent of government or of other individual ) .

However , citizenship is a positive liberty and its endowment is determined by immigration policy , based upon " within its jurisdiction " and definitely not determined by undermining politics from rogue marauders , and not determined by those who would aid is infiltration .

* More On Bloviation Adding To Pathetic Address *

Contending that blind ignorance be issued towards the implications of " within jurisdiction " , as a distinct criteria applied to citizenship , simply so that disconcerted feelings of dissenters would not be hurt , is quashed .

Obviously no foundation laid for this additional fallacious assertion given the claimed quote of "within jurisdiction" from Amendment XIV has been shown to be non-existent and the closing snark is what is being quashed. Oh, and your erred a third time making it three for three in the fail column!

A paraphrase of " within its jurisdiction " as " within jurisdiction " is not a logical fallacy and it does not detract from the premise presented here in .

* Ridiculous Flatulence Continues *

The us 14th amendment specifies that one is a citizen at birth to the state in which one was born , just as one is a citizen of a country at birth ; thus , how would one go about getting dual citizenship for different us states , just in case states begin to refuse equal endowment to its non citizens such as not extending state social subsistence to them ?

The several States do not have authority to convey/grant citizenship. See Amendment X and attempt to locate in the Constitution where that power to grant citizenship is enumerated or implied anywhere, which isn't now superseded, is granted to the several States. Why is one required to go to places like a Federal Court House to complete the process of acquiring citizenship in the United States?
Your premise is smoke in the wind and truly displays your ignorance of history, civics and the Constitution! You're a wordy, supercilious fraud still pissing into the wind getting soaked, kid! Finish high school and get some experience under your belt by living about another decade, and for God's sake get thee to College and learn how to write proper prose!

Was that a sentence which was supposed to make the least bit of logical sense , considering you began with citizenship in a state with the 14th amendment and then ended up at an enumeration clause in the 10th amendment ?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

" Addressing The Tireless But Inane "

* Argumentative Absurdity *

The us 14th amendment specifies that one is a citizen at birth to the state in which one was born....

Amendment XIV § 1, Clause 1;
"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." ~~ 14th Amendment ~~ [Emphasis added]
There is a huge difference in YOUR statement directly above and what the Amendment actually states. Obviously a person like myself who was born in Nebraska and now living in Arizona, is no longer a citizen of Nebraska. You're in gross error yet again.

Just because you have a prejudicial bias against accepting an acuity for literacy does not mean the statements are not present , or that their implications are not clear and evident , or that the statements are ignored in common law .
Within the context of greek city states , a premise for citizenship of a state is absolutely plausible .

The us 14th amendment of the constitution stipulates " within jurisdiction " in its phraseology ; and , any competent retort would address implications of that article .

"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ~~ Ibid ~~ [Emphasis added]
Again, you misquote the Amendment for your own purposes of misdirection. The Amendment does NOT stipulate the phrase "within jurisdiction" anywhere in its five Sections. Therefore, the only conclusion to be drawn is that your assertion is false and you err yet again!

A paraphrase of " within its jurisdiction " as " within jurisdiction " is hardly a logical fallacy .

A due process clause is a " protection " clause that is analogous with negative liberty ( to act freely , independent of government or of other individual ) .

However , citizenship is a positive liberty and its endowment is determined by immigration policy , based upon " within its jurisdiction " and definitely not determined by undermining politics from rogue marauders , and not determined by those who would aid is infiltration .

* More On Bloviation Adding To Pathetic Address *

Contending that blind ignorance be issued towards the implications of " within jurisdiction " , as a distinct criteria applied to citizenship , simply so that disconcerted feelings of dissenters would not be hurt , is quashed .

Obviously no foundation laid for this additional fallacious assertion given the claimed quote of "within jurisdiction" from Amendment XIV has been shown to be non-existent and the closing snark is what is being quashed. Oh, and your erred a third time making it three for three in the fail column!

A paraphrase of " within its jurisdiction " as " within jurisdiction " is not a logical fallacy and it does not detract from the premise presented here in .

* Ridiculous Flatulence Continues *

The us 14th amendment specifies that one is a citizen at birth to the state in which one was born , just as one is a citizen of a country at birth ; thus , how would one go about getting dual citizenship for different us states , just in case states begin to refuse equal endowment to its non citizens such as not extending state social subsistence to them ?

The several States do not have authority to convey/grant citizenship. See Amendment X and attempt to locate in the Constitution where that power to grant citizenship is enumerated or implied anywhere, which isn't now superseded, is granted to the several States. Why is one required to go to places like a Federal Court House to complete the process of acquiring citizenship in the United States?
Your premise is smoke in the wind and truly displays your ignorance of history, civics and the Constitution! You're a wordy, supercilious fraud still pissing into the wind getting soaked, kid! Finish high school and get some experience under your belt by living about another decade, and for God's sake get thee to College and learn how to write proper prose!

Was that a sentence which was supposed to make the least bit of logical sense , considering you began with citizenship in a state with the 14th amendment and then ended up at an enumeration clause in the 10th amendment ?

ust because you have a prejudicial bias against accepting an acuity for literacy does not mean the statements are not present , or that their implications are not clear and evident , or that the statements are ignored in common law .
Within the context of greek city states , a premise for citizenship of a state is absolutely plausible .

The only bias I hold regarding these exchanges is a distinct abhorrence of dishonest rodomonts with a penchant for playing fast and loose with the truth. You claimed that Amendment XIV, "...specifies that one is a citizen at birth to the state in which one was born...." That is patently false and NOT specified in the Amendment as you falsely claim! Amendment XIV clearly states at Amendment XIV § 1, Clause 1, "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."

There can be a very a distinct difference between where a person is born and where they reside, your transparent "justifications", obfuscations and distortions notwithstanding. The ancient Greek city states have absolutely no bearing on the topic and are totally irrelevant to the discussion.

You previously stated;

The us 14th amendment of the constitution stipulates " within jurisdiction " in its phraseology ; and , any competent retort would address implications of that article .

To which I responded with;

"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ~~ Ibid ~~ [Emphasis added]

Again, you misquote the Amendment for your own purposes of misdirection. The Amendment does NOT stipulate the phrase "within jurisdiction" anywhere in its five Sections. Therefore, the only conclusion to be drawn is that your assertion is false and you err yet again!

And now you claim;

A paraphrase of " within its jurisdiction " as " within jurisdiction " is hardly a logical fallacy .

The only logical fallacy was yours using the straw man of an illusory and corrupt fallacy which YOU injected, completely avoiding the point I made. That being you LIED about your phrase, "within jurisdiction" being STIPULATED in the Amendment, which it is not!. You tried to pawn it off as a paraphrasing IN QUOTATION MARKS in your response, compounding your LIE! Your quotation marked "paraphrasing" was not a stipulation as you falsely claimed, but a LIE.

Leaving out the possessive pronoun 'its' in the phrase distorts the clarity of it as written in the Amendment, but is useful for you in your convoluted argumentation for various purposes as I've observed in this thread. Do you actually believe that "paraphrasing" by removing three(3) letters brings any clarity to the remainder? You bloody fraud!

Along with the "paraphrasing" crap above you included this garbage;

However , citizenship is a positive liberty and its endowment is determined by immigration policy , based upon " within its jurisdiction "

First, what the Constitution as amended in the 14th amendment says about "any person within its jurisdiction";

"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I could give a shit less what political pseudo elite jargon you throw around claims. Go to the source for the intent! There, right above are the words amending the original Constitution which became part of the Contract with the People. Does that passage from the Amendment regarding your present or past wacko thesis of "within jurisdiction" or your new and revised "within its jurisdiction", support your claim as a panacea for all instances of conveyance of citizenship? It certainly does not!

The Amendment was not based on or in immigration policy per se, but rather in the conveyance of rights under Constitutional LAW! The meaning and intent of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" of the last Clause of the first section of Amendment XIV extended those Federal protections to all people in all the States. It wasn't constructed for immigration purposes at all, and plucking away a single phrase to do other mischief not intended in its construction would be the Devils work of malcontents and other un-American miscreants.

And before your devious mind goes there, the Amendment, as written, did become useful in the instance of Wong Kim Ark in 1898 in discovering the broad intent of Amendment XIV within the somewhat tangential scope of immigration and citizenship.

You finished off that portion with this closing;

A paraphrase of " within its jurisdiction " as " within jurisdiction " is not a logical fallacy and it does not detract from the premise presented here in .

This redundant sophistry is now set aside as false and without effect of any truth. Trying to make a fine purse from a sows ear is fruitless, but as you grow into your maturity in years to come you may comprehend that worn homily.

But let's back up an look at the genesis of this sub-topic when you wrote this;

The us 14th amendment specifies that one is a citizen at birth to the state in which one was born , just as one is a citizen of a country at birth ; thus , how would one go about getting dual citizenship for different us states , just in case states begin to refuse equal endowment to its non citizens such as not extending state social subsistence to them ?

To which I responded with this;

Dual citizenship is a non-starter. The several States do not have authority to convey/grant citizenship. See Amendment X and attempt to locate in the Constitution where that power to grant citizenship is enumerated or implied anywhere, which isn't now superseded, is granted to the several States. Why is one required to go to places like a Federal Court House to complete the process of acquiring citizenship in the United States

You wrote in your closing remarks of the post to which I'm responding;

Was that a sentence which was supposed to make the least bit of logical sense , considering you began with citizenship in a state with the 14th amendment and then ended up at an enumeration clause in the 10th amendment ?

Your absurd suggestion of dual State citizenship was the main topic addressed using Amendment XIV as the springboard to launch that inane idiocy. First, I like to know where your, ":..enumeration clause in the 10th amendment...." even exists! Amendment X consists of a single brief sentence stating the following;
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Do you see any enumeration clause there? How about a State's Constitutional authority to convey citizenship as a power left to the several States? In other words, how could a State even consider your uniformed proposition of, "...how would one go about getting dual citizenship for different us states , just in case states begin to refuse equal endowment to its non citizens such as not extending state social subsistence to them ?"

I made an incorrect assumption that you actually had some slight modicum of understanding of the enumerated powers of Congress and in particular, Article I, § 8, Clause 4 which delegated the SOLE POWER, "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization...." to Congress. That meaning the several States had none, thereby closing the door on that path.

The powers of the States and their role in granting citizenship was at the heart of your highlighted question above. If you couldn't follow that logic, you need remedial help, and I won't overly estimate your knowledge base or cognitive abilities again in that respect. It is no wonder you were so confused about why I went to Amendment X to uproot your fantasies!

And yet you're STILL pissing into the wind and confused about the dampness!

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Arguments Lost On Delusional Statists "

* Denial Buy Awl Means *

There is a huge difference in YOUR statement directly above and what the Amendment actually states. Obviously a person like myself who was born in Nebraska and now living in Arizona, is no longer a citizen of Nebraska. You're in gross error yet again.

A lack of acumen for literacy is not my fault .

Albeit not instituted from theory in contemporary law , a direct inference from " are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." is that one receives citizenship in a state , as well as a citizenship of the united states .

Such clear evidence from sentence structure could only be denied by an illiterate imbecile , or by one argumentatively delusional .

* Stone Throw Away From Spelling Faux Pas Tirades *

A paraphrase of " within its jurisdiction " as " within jurisdiction " is hardly a logical fallacy .

It was conceded in the previous post that the full clause of " within its jurisdiction " may as well not be abridged , though the root meaning is indistinct except for the specific instance of use in us constitution .

* Avoidance Behavior Obvious *

However , citizenship is a positive liberty and its endowment is determined by immigration policy , based upon " within its jurisdiction " and definitely not determined by undermining politics from rogue marauders , and not determined by those who would aid is infiltration .

Applying the terms negative wrights , positive wrights , negative liberties , positive liberties will not be avoided - A Treatise of Legal Philosophy on Adequate Political Science Terms for Civics Pedagogy

* Directing Two A Whaling Wall *

The several States do not have authority to convey/grant citizenship. See Amendment X and attempt to locate in the Constitution where that power to grant citizenship is enumerated or implied anywhere, which isn't now superseded, is granted to the several States. Why is one required to go to places like a Federal Court House to complete the process of acquiring citizenship in the United States?...
Do you see any enumeration clause there? How about a State's Constitutional authority to convey citizenship as a power left to the several States? In other words, how could a State even consider your uniformed proposition of, "...how would one go about getting dual citizenship for different us states , just in case states begin to refuse equal endowment to its non citizens such as not extending state social subsistence to them ?"
...
I made an incorrect assumption that you actually had some slight modicum of understanding of the enumerated powers of Congress and in particular, Article I, § 8, Clause 4 which delegated the SOLE POWER, "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization...." to Congress. That meaning the several States had none, thereby closing the door on that path.

The conjunction " AND " between citizen of a state and citizen of the united states stipulates two different classifications of citizenship , that is clear to any one with a modicum of literacy .

Obviously , the contemporary system of citizenship classification is not emphatic about a distinction between citizenship of a state and citizenship of the united states , though the statements are clear .

There was a time where geography and limits of travel isolate jurisdictions that provisioned independent between states , where an option to restrict free to travel for undesirables could have been taken for granted .

* Thought Patterns Of Intoxicated Conversationalists *

The powers of the States and their role in granting citizenship was at the heart of your highlighted question above. If you couldn't follow that logic, you need remedial help, and I won't overly estimate your knowledge base or cognitive abilities again in that respect. It is no wonder you were so confused about why I went to Amendment X to uproot your fantasies!

My education credentials are phenomenal ; and , diminutive pompous piety on your behalf does not mask an over compensation for a lack of efficacy by failing to acknowledge undeniable objects in sentence structure .

* Pedantic Neophyte Colloquialism *

And yet you're STILL pissing into the wind and confused about the dampness!

 

[Markle]

But we can declare them not a citizen of ours!

Quite true.

Further, the child of a Mexican citizen, born in any foreign country is a citizen of Mexico. We don't need to do anything except change our law allowing for anchor babies.

Along the way, we should change our immigration laws to mirror those of Mexico.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

" Arguments Lost On Delusional Statists "

* Denial Buy Awl Means *

There is a huge difference in YOUR statement directly above and what the Amendment actually states. Obviously a person like myself who was born in Nebraska and now living in Arizona, is no longer a citizen of Nebraska. You're in gross error yet again.

A lack of acumen for literacy is not my fault .

Albeit not instituted from theory in contemporary law , a direct inference from " are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." is that one receives citizenship in a state , as well as a citizenship of the united states .

Such clear evidence from sentence structure could only be denied by an illiterate imbecile , or by one argumentatively delusional .

* Stone Throw Away From Spelling Faux Pas Tirades *

A paraphrase of " within its jurisdiction " as " within jurisdiction " is hardly a logical fallacy .

It was conceded in the previous post that the full clause of " within its jurisdiction " may as well not be abridged , though the root meaning is indistinct except for the specific instance of use in us constitution .

* Avoidance Behavior Obvious *

However , citizenship is a positive liberty and its endowment is determined by immigration policy , based upon " within its jurisdiction " and definitely not determined by undermining politics from rogue marauders , and not determined by those who would aid is infiltration .

Applying the terms negative wrights , positive wrights , negative liberties , positive liberties will not be avoided - A Treatise of Legal Philosophy on Adequate Political Science Terms for Civics Pedagogy

* Directing Two A Whaling Wall *

The several States do not have authority to convey/grant citizenship. See Amendment X and attempt to locate in the Constitution where that power to grant citizenship is enumerated or implied anywhere, which isn't now superseded, is granted to the several States. Why is one required to go to places like a Federal Court House to complete the process of acquiring citizenship in the United States?...
Do you see any enumeration clause there? How about a State's Constitutional authority to convey citizenship as a power left to the several States? In other words, how could a State even consider your uniformed proposition of, "...how would one go about getting dual citizenship for different us states , just in case states begin to refuse equal endowment to its non citizens such as not extending state social subsistence to them ?"
...
I made an incorrect assumption that you actually had some slight modicum of understanding of the enumerated powers of Congress and in particular, Article I, § 8, Clause 4 which delegated the SOLE POWER, "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization...." to Congress. That meaning the several States had none, thereby closing the door on that path.

The conjunction " AND " between citizen of a state and citizen of the united states stipulates two different classifications of citizenship , that is clear to any one with a modicum of literacy .

Obviously , the contemporary system of citizenship classification is not emphatic about a distinction between citizenship of a state and citizenship of the united states , though the statements are clear .

There was a time where geography and limits of travel isolate jurisdictions that provisioned independent between states , where an option to restrict free to travel for undesirables could have been taken for granted .

* Thought Patterns Of Intoxicated Conversationalists *

The powers of the States and their role in granting citizenship was at the heart of your highlighted question above. If you couldn't follow that logic, you need remedial help, and I won't overly estimate your knowledge base or cognitive abilities again in that respect. It is no wonder you were so confused about why I went to Amendment X to uproot your fantasies!

My education credentials are phenomenal ; and , diminutive pompous piety on your behalf does not mask an over compensation for a lack of efficacy by failing to acknowledge undeniable objects in sentence structure .

* Pedantic Neophyte Colloquialism *

And yet you're STILL pissing into the wind and confused about the dampness!

Thank you for finally having the courage and honesty to finally admit your errors. Keep that up, and I'm sure you'll grow into a fine young man and make momma and daddy very proud some day.

There is just one little mistake you made you should work on to make your posts near bullet proof for accusations of fraudulent and dishonest machinations.The issue is this below in the collection of quote boxes and responses.
This is a quote from your post #93;

A paraphrase of " within its jurisdiction " as " within jurisdiction " is hardly a logical fallacy .

I quoted that statement in my post #94 and it looks just like this and with the exact words you use and posted in post #94;

A paraphrase of " within its jurisdiction " as " within jurisdiction " is hardly a logical fallacy .

But you doctored it and linked me in my post #92 as the originator of your words in post #95;

A paraphrase of " within its jurisdiction " as " within jurisdiction " is hardly a logical fallacy .

You see how you've made it so obvious you doctored that and how it was so very easy to detect? Because that statement cannot be found in my remarks and the link had to be set up in several manual steps, you made it far too easy you track back to your hands. Be sure you watch out for that in the future, lad, and you could likely rise to Top Dog Fraud when you get out of H.S. kid...and for God's Sake, try to stay dry if only for sanitary reasons!

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

 

[ptbw forever]

But we can declare them not a citizen of ours!

Birthright citizenship is one reason why America is exceptional.

It is why America is going down the drain.

 

[Bush92]

" Legislative Proposal : Children Born Of Illegal Immigrants To Receive Citizenship Of Mother "

* Legislative Proposal Artifacts *

A first principle of self defense is that when a citizen travels abroad , its state of origin remains responsible for issuing a retort and for reprising any violations of its civil liberties , and such is a purpose for travel agreements .

A key element defining jurisdiction of us state , as it applies to citizenship , is identified in the second article of Section 1 of US 14th Amendment and evident from the phrase " .. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction .. " , which correlates with the phrase " within its jurisdiction " in the first article of Section 1 of US 14th Amendment .

Together the first principle of self defense and the two articles of within its " jurisdiction " of Section 1 of US 14th Amendment delineate a technical legal predicate that us constitution does not guarantee equal protection to foreign nationals without legal immigrant status ; and , consequently , children of illegal immigrants are not entitled to us citizenship .

** Legislative Proposal Conclusions **

One thing true of a collective state is that its citizens determine policies for accepting additional members as citizens of its collective state .

Children of individuals who are not legal immigrants are not within us jurisdiction and should be given citizenship to the country of origin for their mother .

This treatise does not digress as to whether citizenship is a protection or an endowment .


** References **

*** Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


* Ivory Tower Mundane City Libertarian Oligarchs Closet Key Hole Out Lets *

The oh ba ma administration maintained a public comment line for suggestions , while captain strump appears to maintain an autocratic regard that political perceptions for meritocracy from plebeians be resigned to a realm irrelevance .

Another example of limited us jurisdiction is foreign envoys who seek agreements with foreign government not to be arrested for any crime while visiting .

Post Civil War Radical Republicans were a bunch of kooks. 14th Amendment is the most ambiguous and misinterpreted in the Constitution.

 

[Bush92]

Thaddeus Stevens as a “Good White Man.” Guess that’s fine to write about.