Making America Great Again: President Trump Seriously Looking At Ending Birthright Citizenship

[pknopp]

Yes, I would deny that Hollywood is "Liberal".

James woods is liberal? Tom Selleck?

I could go on. I'm not interested in your vast generalizations. They are the arguments of the weak.

You could go on, but not very far I'm afraid. If you don't think Hollywood is liberal, it tells me your limited knowledge of politics in general.

Disney and the rest have done what they did to increase "shareholder value". That is not a liberal value. That is a Conservative welfare system.

Sure they did. However the Washington Examiner totally disagrees with you.

Disney’s push to force leftist politics onto kids

Says nothing about Shareholder value.

What it does say is they are pushing their leftist agenda against the approval of their consumers. How is that promoting shareholder values?

They seem to be doing pretty well. Their market isn't a middle aged truck driver.

 

[pknopp]

It can be used for a lot of better purposes. I'm all for ending the wars. Stopping the bail outs. Etc.

Bailouts were a once in a great while thing, and let's not forget DumBama's involvement in that. Taking care of all these immigrants is an ongoing thing and a never ending expense that's been going on every year for decades. Apples and oranges.

If I destroyed their home it's the least I can allow them to do. When we stop destroying the lands of others, then we can start demanding they all stay there.

Thank you from the Blame America First crowd. Now who's land did we destroy from south America?

How US policy in Honduras set the stage for today's migration

About the most leftist piece of garbage I've ever seen.

As I said, anything that doesn't fit your argument. If you want to argue that history is leftist, have at it.

That is correct, I mistakenly said leftist, when what I should have said is anti-American. They lay blame going back to the late 1800's on the United States, and even blamed the actions of the Clintons: both Bill and Hillary. They also placed blame on DumBama as well.

I enjoy watching someone like yourself defend Bill and Hillary. That's even more than I will do.

 

[pknopp]

She meant AIPAC and money...one has to make a clear difference between criticizing lobbies that back Israel and anti semitism.
Example I dont like the regime in Saudi Arabia that doesnt make me islamophobe.

Ilan Omar is a ******* Muslim who wears a hijab a symbol of Muslim oppression of females and theocratic rule which is directly opposed to our Constitution. She refuses to remove that rag. Her comrades are traitors and should be prosecuted as such along with her. You are out of your mind if you think for one minute any one of these cult-religion bitches care about America.

She is oppressed because she wears a hijab and you are the first to attack k and insult her ? Lol you want her half naked to prove that she is not oppressed ? She represents her area and she was elected by Americans....you can go and run against her and try and defeat her democratically.

How about if she dresses like an American? Nah, can't have that. She's in America now unfortunately.

Moccasins and a headdress?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

It's the next step in making America great again. Birthright Citizenship refers to Citizen parents, not Illegals. The 14th Amendment was only created for slaves after the civil war. It was not created for foreigners. Let's hear from the man who wrote the Citizenship clause himself, Senator John Jacob Howard:

"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."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete.



President Trump Says He Is Still "Looking Seriously" at Ending Birthright Citizenship

White nationalists trying to slow down the demographics change lol....keep on living in fear and paranoia.

Racist Democrats trying to displace Anglo Voters

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Trump is helping Americans.
Barry the Magnificent screwed-over Americans for 8 years.

 

[White_MAGA_Man]

The problem is less Congress than it was previous rulings on citizenship. That's what we need to do first; have it so the Supreme Court rules that anchor babies are not constitutionally protected.

Maybe you should study some American history. Birthright citizenship has been recognized for hundreds of years and by great men such as James Madison. We should discard it because white men are afraid of losing their political influence. If the Supreme Court turns this aside then no one including you is a American citizen.

James Madison and Abraham Lincoln were great men. Our society has changed since they offered their opinions, though. During their times, there were no such things as "illegals." If a person moved here, he could apply for naturalization or not, but the government did not start putting limits on how many or who could enter until 1882; immigration laws have become increasingly restrictive since.

16% of the countries (30+) in the world have birthright citizenship, almost exclusively in North and South America. From the map I found, only Colombia and Surinam in the Americas do not (it wasn't a big map; I hope that's accurate). Europe, Africa and Asia has only a handful--Kenya, Lesotho and Pakistan were the only ones I could find. None in Europe, although France and Ireland gave it up recently (1993 and 2005 respectively) and so did Australia. Over here, the Dominican Republic just gave it up in 2013--and left tens of thousands residents nationless due to undocumented nationality of their parents. We'd want to make sure that doesn't happen if we change over.

Canada is also considering revoking birthright citizenship due to "birth tourism;" and is one of the reasons the overseas countries that have recently revoked it did.

The cost of social programs for illegals who are not paying into the system? That is a factor, but I believe it is greatly exaggerated. That argument is for another thread, though.

This is a good article for perspective of jus soli (right of the soil) and jus sanguinis (right of blood) --the nationality of a parent. There is nothing "evil" about revoking jus soli. With the changes in our society, sometimes laws need to change, too.

America Isn’t the ‘Only Country’ With Birthright Citizenship

Then revoke it legally by a constitutional amendment. There is no basis in fact to assume that birthright citizenship is not the law of the land and the 14th Amendment does grant birthright citizenship. That was explicitly made clear during the debate. James Madison said parentage does not matter as much as location.

The father of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham, during its framing stated this:

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Anchor babies are not citizens. They are born with allegiance to their illegal parents country.

A baby who has never been to another country cannot have allegiance to a country they have never been in. Birthright citizenship was a part of this country BEFORE the 14th Amendment. You can give us 1 quote. I can give you a dozen proving my point.

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other."
-James Madison 1789

press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html


"The only standard which then existed [when the Constitution was written],of a natural born citizen, was the rule of common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen."
Vice Chancellor Lewis Sandford in Lynch vs Clarke

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Chancery of the State of New York [1843-1847, Before the Hon. Lewis H. Sandford, Assistant Vice-chancellor of the First Circuit

"In reply to the inquiry which is made by you…whether “the children of foreign parents born in the United States, but brought to the country of which the father is a subject, and continuing to reside within the jurisdiction of their father’s country, are entitled to protection as citizens of the United States,” I have to observe that it is presumed that, according to the common law, any person born in the United States, unless he be born in one of the foreign legations therein, may be considered a citizen thereof until he formally renounces his citizenship. There is not, however any United States statute containing a provision upon this subject, nor, so far as I am aware, has there been any judicial decision in regard to it."
Secretary of State William Learned Mercy

A digest of international law as embodied in diplomatic discussions, treaties and other international agreements

"The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words ‘natural born citizen of the United states’ appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth–natural born citizens."
Rep Bingham in 1862

memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=059/llcg059.db&recNum=680

The meaning was very clear during debate.

Mr. COWAN. I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Undoubtedly.

[…]

Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?

Mr. COWAN. I think not.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

James Ho makes a obvious point.
"It is also worth observing that, if the drafters had intended to require allegiance, rather than obedience, they could have said so. How easy it would have been for them to state explicitly that only children born to citizens are guaranteed birthright citizenship—with a simple proviso to address the descendants of slaves. But instead, they chose the language of jurisdiction, not citizenship. And that decision deserves respect."

None of that pertains to anchor babies. The Constitution does not mandate that babies born to illegal immigrants are entitled to birthright citizenship. Show me specifically where in the 14th Amendment it mentions children of Illegal aliens. Show me specific precedent case law ruled by the Supreme Court granting anchor babies of illegal aliens Citizenship. The 14th Amendment does not need to be amended to prohibit birthright citizenship. It merely needs to be interpreted correctly. Constitutional originalism requires interpreting the Constitution the way it was intended when it was written or amended. We know what it meant then, and it did not mean illegal immigrants.

 

[Correll]

Got it. You have shit, just like I said.

My point stands. Iraq was a threat and anyone that says otherwise is dishonest or a dupe.


Your using your anti-American spin of our foreign policy to excuse the actions of illegals has been shown to be bullshit.


Why do you always side with the anti-American side?

I never side with those who lie to us.

I asked you a simple question, and you had to run and hide from answering.


What type of coward can't answer a simple and honest question?

Sorry you do not like my honest answer. I believe it is those who would lie this country into wars and those who support that is being un American.

Which regard to the issue of the "lie" you had a choice. YOu could believe that the leader of the United States lied, or you could believe that he, along with the intelligence agencies of the rest of the Free World, made an understandable mistake.

A 16 year and counting mistake? If you make a mistake, what do you do?

You choose to believe the worst of America.


That was your choice. ANd you seem to make that choice each and every time.


That is you being an anti-American. YOU.

We make more than our fair share of "mistakes". Being a "good American" does not mean you support the United States no matter what it does.

1. The mistake we were discussing was on WMDs. That is done. That you tried to conflate that with the invasion and occupation was dishonest of you. You used dishonesty because you know that your position is false.


2. My point was clear. You keep choosing the interpretation that puts the US in the worse or worst light. YOu disagree? Give me an example where you do the opposite, your best example.

 

[OldLady]

Maybe you should study some American history. Birthright citizenship has been recognized for hundreds of years and by great men such as James Madison. We should discard it because white men are afraid of losing their political influence. If the Supreme Court turns this aside then no one including you is a American citizen.

James Madison and Abraham Lincoln were great men. Our society has changed since they offered their opinions, though. During their times, there were no such things as "illegals." If a person moved here, he could apply for naturalization or not, but the government did not start putting limits on how many or who could enter until 1882; immigration laws have become increasingly restrictive since.

16% of the countries (30+) in the world have birthright citizenship, almost exclusively in North and South America. From the map I found, only Colombia and Surinam in the Americas do not (it wasn't a big map; I hope that's accurate). Europe, Africa and Asia has only a handful--Kenya, Lesotho and Pakistan were the only ones I could find. None in Europe, although France and Ireland gave it up recently (1993 and 2005 respectively) and so did Australia. Over here, the Dominican Republic just gave it up in 2013--and left tens of thousands residents nationless due to undocumented nationality of their parents. We'd want to make sure that doesn't happen if we change over.

Canada is also considering revoking birthright citizenship due to "birth tourism;" and is one of the reasons the overseas countries that have recently revoked it did.

The cost of social programs for illegals who are not paying into the system? That is a factor, but I believe it is greatly exaggerated. That argument is for another thread, though.

This is a good article for perspective of jus soli (right of the soil) and jus sanguinis (right of blood) --the nationality of a parent. There is nothing "evil" about revoking jus soli. With the changes in our society, sometimes laws need to change, too.

America Isn’t the ‘Only Country’ With Birthright Citizenship

Then revoke it legally by a constitutional amendment. There is no basis in fact to assume that birthright citizenship is not the law of the land and the 14th Amendment does grant birthright citizenship. That was explicitly made clear during the debate. James Madison said parentage does not matter as much as location.

The father of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham, during its framing stated this:

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Anchor babies are not citizens. They are born with allegiance to their illegal parents country.

A baby who has never been to another country cannot have allegiance to a country they have never been in. Birthright citizenship was a part of this country BEFORE the 14th Amendment. You can give us 1 quote. I can give you a dozen proving my point.

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other."
-James Madison 1789

press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html


"The only standard which then existed [when the Constitution was written],of a natural born citizen, was the rule of common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen."
Vice Chancellor Lewis Sandford in Lynch vs Clarke

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Chancery of the State of New York [1843-1847, Before the Hon. Lewis H. Sandford, Assistant Vice-chancellor of the First Circuit

"In reply to the inquiry which is made by you…whether “the children of foreign parents born in the United States, but brought to the country of which the father is a subject, and continuing to reside within the jurisdiction of their father’s country, are entitled to protection as citizens of the United States,” I have to observe that it is presumed that, according to the common law, any person born in the United States, unless he be born in one of the foreign legations therein, may be considered a citizen thereof until he formally renounces his citizenship. There is not, however any United States statute containing a provision upon this subject, nor, so far as I am aware, has there been any judicial decision in regard to it."
Secretary of State William Learned Mercy

A digest of international law as embodied in diplomatic discussions, treaties and other international agreements

"The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words ‘natural born citizen of the United states’ appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth–natural born citizens."
Rep Bingham in 1862

memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=059/llcg059.db&recNum=680

The meaning was very clear during debate.

Mr. COWAN. I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Undoubtedly.

[…]

Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?

Mr. COWAN. I think not.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

James Ho makes a obvious point.
"It is also worth observing that, if the drafters had intended to require allegiance, rather than obedience, they could have said so. How easy it would have been for them to state explicitly that only children born to citizens are guaranteed birthright citizenship—with a simple proviso to address the descendants of slaves. But instead, they chose the language of jurisdiction, not citizenship. And that decision deserves respect."

None of that pertains to anchor babies. The Constitution does not mandate that babies born to illegal immigrants are entitled to birthright citizenship. Show me specifically where in the 14th Amendment it mentions children of Illegal aliens. Show me specific precedent case law ruled by the Supreme Court granting anchor babies of illegal aliens Citizenship. The 14th Amendment does not need to be amended to prohibit birthright citizenship. It merely needs to be interpreted correctly. Constitutional originalism requires interpreting the Constitution the way it was intended when it was written or amended. We know what it meant then, and it did not mean illegal immigrants.

For the hundred-millionth time, when the Constitution was written, when Madison argued for jus soli, there was no such thing as "illegal aliens." If you managed to get here, you could be naturalized or not, but there was no such thing as an "illegal" status.
Times change. This is not two hundred and thirty years ago. Originalism is bullshit. If the Founders wanted the Constitution to be interpreted the same for hundreds of years, they would not have included orderly ways to CHANGE it.

 

[pknopp]

I never side with those who lie to us.

I asked you a simple question, and you had to run and hide from answering.


What type of coward can't answer a simple and honest question?

Sorry you do not like my honest answer. I believe it is those who would lie this country into wars and those who support that is being un American.

Which regard to the issue of the "lie" you had a choice. YOu could believe that the leader of the United States lied, or you could believe that he, along with the intelligence agencies of the rest of the Free World, made an understandable mistake.

A 16 year and counting mistake? If you make a mistake, what do you do?

You choose to believe the worst of America.


That was your choice. ANd you seem to make that choice each and every time.


That is you being an anti-American. YOU.

We make more than our fair share of "mistakes". Being a "good American" does not mean you support the United States no matter what it does.

1. The mistake we were discussing was on WMDs. That is done. That you tried to conflate that with the invasion and occupation was dishonest of you. You used dishonesty because you know that your position is false.


2. My point was clear. You keep choosing the interpretation that puts the US in the worse or worst light. YOu disagree? Give me an example where you do the opposite, your best example.

We have heard the same warnings over and over concerning N. Korea. We have done nothing. No wasted billions, no dead American soldiers, no dead innocent civilians.

 

[BS Filter]

It's the next step in making America great again. Birthright Citizenship refers to Citizen parents, not Illegals. The 14th Amendment was only created for slaves after the civil war. It was not created for foreigners. Let's hear from the man who wrote the Citizenship clause himself, Senator John Jacob Howard:

"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."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete.



President Trump Says He Is Still "Looking Seriously" at Ending Birthright Citizenship

Excellent post. The 14th amendment has been perverted and twisted by the left until it is no longer valid. What a mockery the left makes of our precious document.

 

[BS Filter]

James Madison and Abraham Lincoln were great men. Our society has changed since they offered their opinions, though. During their times, there were no such things as "illegals." If a person moved here, he could apply for naturalization or not, but the government did not start putting limits on how many or who could enter until 1882; immigration laws have become increasingly restrictive since.

16% of the countries (30+) in the world have birthright citizenship, almost exclusively in North and South America. From the map I found, only Colombia and Surinam in the Americas do not (it wasn't a big map; I hope that's accurate). Europe, Africa and Asia has only a handful--Kenya, Lesotho and Pakistan were the only ones I could find. None in Europe, although France and Ireland gave it up recently (1993 and 2005 respectively) and so did Australia. Over here, the Dominican Republic just gave it up in 2013--and left tens of thousands residents nationless due to undocumented nationality of their parents. We'd want to make sure that doesn't happen if we change over.

Canada is also considering revoking birthright citizenship due to "birth tourism;" and is one of the reasons the overseas countries that have recently revoked it did.

The cost of social programs for illegals who are not paying into the system? That is a factor, but I believe it is greatly exaggerated. That argument is for another thread, though.

This is a good article for perspective of jus soli (right of the soil) and jus sanguinis (right of blood) --the nationality of a parent. There is nothing "evil" about revoking jus soli. With the changes in our society, sometimes laws need to change, too.

America Isn’t the ‘Only Country’ With Birthright Citizenship

Then revoke it legally by a constitutional amendment. There is no basis in fact to assume that birthright citizenship is not the law of the land and the 14th Amendment does grant birthright citizenship. That was explicitly made clear during the debate. James Madison said parentage does not matter as much as location.

The father of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham, during its framing stated this:

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Anchor babies are not citizens. They are born with allegiance to their illegal parents country.

A baby who has never been to another country cannot have allegiance to a country they have never been in. Birthright citizenship was a part of this country BEFORE the 14th Amendment. You can give us 1 quote. I can give you a dozen proving my point.

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other."
-James Madison 1789

press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html


"The only standard which then existed [when the Constitution was written],of a natural born citizen, was the rule of common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen."
Vice Chancellor Lewis Sandford in Lynch vs Clarke

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Chancery of the State of New York [1843-1847, Before the Hon. Lewis H. Sandford, Assistant Vice-chancellor of the First Circuit

"In reply to the inquiry which is made by you…whether “the children of foreign parents born in the United States, but brought to the country of which the father is a subject, and continuing to reside within the jurisdiction of their father’s country, are entitled to protection as citizens of the United States,” I have to observe that it is presumed that, according to the common law, any person born in the United States, unless he be born in one of the foreign legations therein, may be considered a citizen thereof until he formally renounces his citizenship. There is not, however any United States statute containing a provision upon this subject, nor, so far as I am aware, has there been any judicial decision in regard to it."
Secretary of State William Learned Mercy

A digest of international law as embodied in diplomatic discussions, treaties and other international agreements

"The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words ‘natural born citizen of the United states’ appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth–natural born citizens."
Rep Bingham in 1862

memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=059/llcg059.db&recNum=680

The meaning was very clear during debate.

Mr. COWAN. I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Undoubtedly.

[…]

Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?

Mr. COWAN. I think not.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

James Ho makes a obvious point.
"It is also worth observing that, if the drafters had intended to require allegiance, rather than obedience, they could have said so. How easy it would have been for them to state explicitly that only children born to citizens are guaranteed birthright citizenship—with a simple proviso to address the descendants of slaves. But instead, they chose the language of jurisdiction, not citizenship. And that decision deserves respect."

None of that pertains to anchor babies. The Constitution does not mandate that babies born to illegal immigrants are entitled to birthright citizenship. Show me specifically where in the 14th Amendment it mentions children of Illegal aliens. Show me specific precedent case law ruled by the Supreme Court granting anchor babies of illegal aliens Citizenship. The 14th Amendment does not need to be amended to prohibit birthright citizenship. It merely needs to be interpreted correctly. Constitutional originalism requires interpreting the Constitution the way it was intended when it was written or amended. We know what it meant then, and it did not mean illegal immigrants.

For the hundred-millionth time, when the Constitution was written, when Madison argued for jus soli, there was no such thing as "illegal aliens." If you managed to get here, you could be naturalized or not, but there was no such thing as an "illegal" status.
Times change. This is not two hundred and thirty years ago. Originalism is bullshit. If the Founders wanted the Constitution to be interpreted the same for hundreds of years, they would not have included orderly ways to CHANGE it.

I have nothing against amendments, but that's not the argument. The argument is that the left has perverted and twisted the 14th amendment to say something it wasn't intended to say. The 14th amendment was to give full citizenship rights to ex slaves, and only ex slaves.

 

[White_MAGA_Man]

James Madison and Abraham Lincoln were great men. Our society has changed since they offered their opinions, though. During their times, there were no such things as "illegals." If a person moved here, he could apply for naturalization or not, but the government did not start putting limits on how many or who could enter until 1882; immigration laws have become increasingly restrictive since.

16% of the countries (30+) in the world have birthright citizenship, almost exclusively in North and South America. From the map I found, only Colombia and Surinam in the Americas do not (it wasn't a big map; I hope that's accurate). Europe, Africa and Asia has only a handful--Kenya, Lesotho and Pakistan were the only ones I could find. None in Europe, although France and Ireland gave it up recently (1993 and 2005 respectively) and so did Australia. Over here, the Dominican Republic just gave it up in 2013--and left tens of thousands residents nationless due to undocumented nationality of their parents. We'd want to make sure that doesn't happen if we change over.

Canada is also considering revoking birthright citizenship due to "birth tourism;" and is one of the reasons the overseas countries that have recently revoked it did.

The cost of social programs for illegals who are not paying into the system? That is a factor, but I believe it is greatly exaggerated. That argument is for another thread, though.

This is a good article for perspective of jus soli (right of the soil) and jus sanguinis (right of blood) --the nationality of a parent. There is nothing "evil" about revoking jus soli. With the changes in our society, sometimes laws need to change, too.

America Isn’t the ‘Only Country’ With Birthright Citizenship

Then revoke it legally by a constitutional amendment. There is no basis in fact to assume that birthright citizenship is not the law of the land and the 14th Amendment does grant birthright citizenship. That was explicitly made clear during the debate. James Madison said parentage does not matter as much as location.

The father of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham, during its framing stated this:

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Anchor babies are not citizens. They are born with allegiance to their illegal parents country.

A baby who has never been to another country cannot have allegiance to a country they have never been in. Birthright citizenship was a part of this country BEFORE the 14th Amendment. You can give us 1 quote. I can give you a dozen proving my point.

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other."
-James Madison 1789

press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html


"The only standard which then existed [when the Constitution was written],of a natural born citizen, was the rule of common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen."
Vice Chancellor Lewis Sandford in Lynch vs Clarke

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Chancery of the State of New York [1843-1847, Before the Hon. Lewis H. Sandford, Assistant Vice-chancellor of the First Circuit

"In reply to the inquiry which is made by you…whether “the children of foreign parents born in the United States, but brought to the country of which the father is a subject, and continuing to reside within the jurisdiction of their father’s country, are entitled to protection as citizens of the United States,” I have to observe that it is presumed that, according to the common law, any person born in the United States, unless he be born in one of the foreign legations therein, may be considered a citizen thereof until he formally renounces his citizenship. There is not, however any United States statute containing a provision upon this subject, nor, so far as I am aware, has there been any judicial decision in regard to it."
Secretary of State William Learned Mercy

A digest of international law as embodied in diplomatic discussions, treaties and other international agreements

"The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words ‘natural born citizen of the United states’ appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth–natural born citizens."
Rep Bingham in 1862

memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=059/llcg059.db&recNum=680

The meaning was very clear during debate.

Mr. COWAN. I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Undoubtedly.

[…]

Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?

Mr. COWAN. I think not.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

James Ho makes a obvious point.
"It is also worth observing that, if the drafters had intended to require allegiance, rather than obedience, they could have said so. How easy it would have been for them to state explicitly that only children born to citizens are guaranteed birthright citizenship—with a simple proviso to address the descendants of slaves. But instead, they chose the language of jurisdiction, not citizenship. And that decision deserves respect."

None of that pertains to anchor babies. The Constitution does not mandate that babies born to illegal immigrants are entitled to birthright citizenship. Show me specifically where in the 14th Amendment it mentions children of Illegal aliens. Show me specific precedent case law ruled by the Supreme Court granting anchor babies of illegal aliens Citizenship. The 14th Amendment does not need to be amended to prohibit birthright citizenship. It merely needs to be interpreted correctly. Constitutional originalism requires interpreting the Constitution the way it was intended when it was written or amended. We know what it meant then, and it did not mean illegal immigrants.

For the hundred-millionth time, when the Constitution was written, when Madison argued for jus soli, there was no such thing as "illegal aliens." If you managed to get here, you could be naturalized or not, but there was no such thing as an "illegal" status.
Times change. This is not two hundred and thirty years ago. Originalism is bullshit. If the Founders wanted the Constitution to be interpreted the same for hundreds of years, they would not have included orderly ways to CHANGE it.

Madison is not the sole authority on granting anchor babies Citizenship, dumbass! Originalist is precedent. That's why Trump picked Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, they're both Constitution originalist who interpret case law based on what the Constitution originally meant at that specific time. Trump will win this, even more so if Ginsburg takes her dirt nap soon, replacing her with Amy Coney Barrett, another Constitution originalist.

 

[White_MAGA_Man]

Then revoke it legally by a constitutional amendment. There is no basis in fact to assume that birthright citizenship is not the law of the land and the 14th Amendment does grant birthright citizenship. That was explicitly made clear during the debate. James Madison said parentage does not matter as much as location.

The father of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham, during its framing stated this:

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Anchor babies are not citizens. They are born with allegiance to their illegal parents country.

A baby who has never been to another country cannot have allegiance to a country they have never been in. Birthright citizenship was a part of this country BEFORE the 14th Amendment. You can give us 1 quote. I can give you a dozen proving my point.

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other."
-James Madison 1789

press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html


"The only standard which then existed [when the Constitution was written],of a natural born citizen, was the rule of common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen."
Vice Chancellor Lewis Sandford in Lynch vs Clarke

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Chancery of the State of New York [1843-1847, Before the Hon. Lewis H. Sandford, Assistant Vice-chancellor of the First Circuit

"In reply to the inquiry which is made by you…whether “the children of foreign parents born in the United States, but brought to the country of which the father is a subject, and continuing to reside within the jurisdiction of their father’s country, are entitled to protection as citizens of the United States,” I have to observe that it is presumed that, according to the common law, any person born in the United States, unless he be born in one of the foreign legations therein, may be considered a citizen thereof until he formally renounces his citizenship. There is not, however any United States statute containing a provision upon this subject, nor, so far as I am aware, has there been any judicial decision in regard to it."
Secretary of State William Learned Mercy

A digest of international law as embodied in diplomatic discussions, treaties and other international agreements

"The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words ‘natural born citizen of the United states’ appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth–natural born citizens."
Rep Bingham in 1862

memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=059/llcg059.db&recNum=680

The meaning was very clear during debate.

Mr. COWAN. I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Undoubtedly.

[…]

Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?

Mr. COWAN. I think not.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

James Ho makes a obvious point.
"It is also worth observing that, if the drafters had intended to require allegiance, rather than obedience, they could have said so. How easy it would have been for them to state explicitly that only children born to citizens are guaranteed birthright citizenship—with a simple proviso to address the descendants of slaves. But instead, they chose the language of jurisdiction, not citizenship. And that decision deserves respect."

None of that pertains to anchor babies. The Constitution does not mandate that babies born to illegal immigrants are entitled to birthright citizenship. Show me specifically where in the 14th Amendment it mentions children of Illegal aliens. Show me specific precedent case law ruled by the Supreme Court granting anchor babies of illegal aliens Citizenship. The 14th Amendment does not need to be amended to prohibit birthright citizenship. It merely needs to be interpreted correctly. Constitutional originalism requires interpreting the Constitution the way it was intended when it was written or amended. We know what it meant then, and it did not mean illegal immigrants.

For the hundred-millionth time, when the Constitution was written, when Madison argued for jus soli, there was no such thing as "illegal aliens." If you managed to get here, you could be naturalized or not, but there was no such thing as an "illegal" status.
Times change. This is not two hundred and thirty years ago. Originalism is bullshit. If the Founders wanted the Constitution to be interpreted the same for hundreds of years, they would not have included orderly ways to CHANGE it.

I have nothing against amendments, but that's not the argument. The argument is that the left has perverted and twisted the 14th amendment to say something it wasn't intended to say. The 14th amendment was to give full citizenship rights to ex slaves, and only ex slaves.

You are precisely correct. Thank you!

 

[OldLady]

Then revoke it legally by a constitutional amendment. There is no basis in fact to assume that birthright citizenship is not the law of the land and the 14th Amendment does grant birthright citizenship. That was explicitly made clear during the debate. James Madison said parentage does not matter as much as location.

The father of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham, during its framing stated this:

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Anchor babies are not citizens. They are born with allegiance to their illegal parents country.

A baby who has never been to another country cannot have allegiance to a country they have never been in. Birthright citizenship was a part of this country BEFORE the 14th Amendment. You can give us 1 quote. I can give you a dozen proving my point.

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other."
-James Madison 1789

press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html


"The only standard which then existed [when the Constitution was written],of a natural born citizen, was the rule of common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen."
Vice Chancellor Lewis Sandford in Lynch vs Clarke

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Chancery of the State of New York [1843-1847, Before the Hon. Lewis H. Sandford, Assistant Vice-chancellor of the First Circuit

"In reply to the inquiry which is made by you…whether “the children of foreign parents born in the United States, but brought to the country of which the father is a subject, and continuing to reside within the jurisdiction of their father’s country, are entitled to protection as citizens of the United States,” I have to observe that it is presumed that, according to the common law, any person born in the United States, unless he be born in one of the foreign legations therein, may be considered a citizen thereof until he formally renounces his citizenship. There is not, however any United States statute containing a provision upon this subject, nor, so far as I am aware, has there been any judicial decision in regard to it."
Secretary of State William Learned Mercy

A digest of international law as embodied in diplomatic discussions, treaties and other international agreements

"The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words ‘natural born citizen of the United states’ appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth–natural born citizens."
Rep Bingham in 1862

memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=059/llcg059.db&recNum=680

The meaning was very clear during debate.

Mr. COWAN. I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Undoubtedly.

[…]

Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?

Mr. COWAN. I think not.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

James Ho makes a obvious point.
"It is also worth observing that, if the drafters had intended to require allegiance, rather than obedience, they could have said so. How easy it would have been for them to state explicitly that only children born to citizens are guaranteed birthright citizenship—with a simple proviso to address the descendants of slaves. But instead, they chose the language of jurisdiction, not citizenship. And that decision deserves respect."

None of that pertains to anchor babies. The Constitution does not mandate that babies born to illegal immigrants are entitled to birthright citizenship. Show me specifically where in the 14th Amendment it mentions children of Illegal aliens. Show me specific precedent case law ruled by the Supreme Court granting anchor babies of illegal aliens Citizenship. The 14th Amendment does not need to be amended to prohibit birthright citizenship. It merely needs to be interpreted correctly. Constitutional originalism requires interpreting the Constitution the way it was intended when it was written or amended. We know what it meant then, and it did not mean illegal immigrants.

For the hundred-millionth time, when the Constitution was written, when Madison argued for jus soli, there was no such thing as "illegal aliens." If you managed to get here, you could be naturalized or not, but there was no such thing as an "illegal" status.
Times change. This is not two hundred and thirty years ago. Originalism is bullshit. If the Founders wanted the Constitution to be interpreted the same for hundreds of years, they would not have included orderly ways to CHANGE it.

Madison is not the sole authority on granting anchor babies Citizenship, dumbass! Originalist is precedent. That's why Trump picked Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, they're both Constitution originalist who interpret case law based on what the Constitution originally meant at that specific time. Trump will win this, even more so if Ginsburg takes her dirt nap soon, replacing her with Amy Coney Barrett, another Constitution originalist.

Well, since I agree it needs to change, I'm not sure why you're calling me a dumb ass.

 

[Correll]

You can shove your weird master shit back up your ass were you pulled it from.

My point stands. ONly a fucktard would deny that Iraq was a threat to the world's oil supply with a picture of the world's oil burning in front of him.

From an imperialistic way ? Of course....war Iraq invasion was an imperialistic unilateral move by the US....not even crazy little orange baby agreed with it although he flip flopped on that like always.

I posted photographic evidence to back up my claim, and all you did was restate your claim.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP LEFTARD.

We explained to you that was during the Iraq invasion the international intervention was just...the American invasion of Iraq years later had no legitimacy. Capiche ?

What you did was post a bunch of shit, full more of partisan jabs and shit, than anything resembling a coherent point.


Are you incapable of doing more, or are you purposefully being a prick?

Dude I bet you cant even point where Iraq is...the whole entire world knows and recognize that the Iraq invasion was illegitimate and even the orange admitted that...and you are arguing with your own stupid unfounded stories.

1. You would lose that bet, asshole.

2. THe rest of the world, is too used to being able to take America for granted. No serious adult person could think that removing Saddam was illegitimate.

3. Not sure why you keep referencing Trump. Unless you are putting him forth as an Authority Figure who's wisdom should be deferred to?

 

[Correll]

Got it. You have shit, just like I said.

My point stands. Iraq was a threat and anyone that says otherwise is dishonest or a dupe.


Your using your anti-American spin of our foreign policy to excuse the actions of illegals has been shown to be bullshit.


Why do you always side with the anti-American side?

I never side with those who lie to us.

I asked you a simple question, and you had to run and hide from answering.


What type of coward can't answer a simple and honest question?

Sorry you do not like my honest answer. I believe it is those who would lie this country into wars and those who support that, that is being un American.

How about lying of a healthcare plan that cost the country over a trillion dollars that didn't do nearly what it was supposed to do?

Trump lied to us about the tax cuts. Obamacare is more popular than Trump.

Coward.

 

[iceberg]

The clumsy-ass 14th Amendment served its purpose, but now that poorly-worded, overly broad POS is ******* up everything it touches.

I want the SCOTUS to properly apply it to the 2nd Amendment just to watch the California Commies squeal like buttfucked pigs and demand a clarification.

some people feel the same way about the 2nd amendment. NOT ME - but keep in mind going "poorly worded" to ones you don't like can come back to haunt you on ones you do.

that said, only 30 countries offer this. none in europe.

we do. canada does. and then pretty much all of central and south america, and lob in some island countries for giggles. i'm certainly not for it and don't believe coming over illegally to pop out a kid makes you american.

 

[pknopp]

To note..........so far like with so many things Trump says, he has done nothing.

 

[EduardBernstein]

From an imperialistic way ? Of course....war Iraq invasion was an imperialistic unilateral move by the US....not even crazy little orange baby agreed with it although he flip flopped on that like always.

I posted photographic evidence to back up my claim, and all you did was restate your claim.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP LEFTARD.

We explained to you that was during the Iraq invasion the international intervention was just...the American invasion of Iraq years later had no legitimacy. Capiche ?

What you did was post a bunch of shit, full more of partisan jabs and shit, than anything resembling a coherent point.


Are you incapable of doing more, or are you purposefully being a prick?

Dude I bet you cant even point where Iraq is...the whole entire world knows and recognize that the Iraq invasion was illegitimate and even the orange admitted that...and you are arguing with your own stupid unfounded stories.

1. You would lose that bet, asshole.

2. THe rest of the world, is too used to being able to take America for granted. No serious adult person could think that removing Saddam was illegitimate.

3. Not sure why you keep referencing Trump. Unless you are putting him forth as an Authority Figure who's wisdom should be deferred to?

Saddam was a bad Nazi. The United States still did war crimes in Iraq.
Haditha massacre - Wikipedia
Mahmudiyah rape and killings - Wikipedia

 

[Correll]

I asked you a simple question, and you had to run and hide from answering.


What type of coward can't answer a simple and honest question?

Sorry you do not like my honest answer. I believe it is those who would lie this country into wars and those who support that is being un American.

Which regard to the issue of the "lie" you had a choice. YOu could believe that the leader of the United States lied, or you could believe that he, along with the intelligence agencies of the rest of the Free World, made an understandable mistake.

A 16 year and counting mistake? If you make a mistake, what do you do?

You choose to believe the worst of America.


That was your choice. ANd you seem to make that choice each and every time.


That is you being an anti-American. YOU.

We make more than our fair share of "mistakes". Being a "good American" does not mean you support the United States no matter what it does.

1. The mistake we were discussing was on WMDs. That is done. That you tried to conflate that with the invasion and occupation was dishonest of you. You used dishonesty because you know that your position is false.


2. My point was clear. You keep choosing the interpretation that puts the US in the worse or worst light. YOu disagree? Give me an example where you do the opposite, your best example.

We have heard the same warnings over and over concerning N. Korea. We have done nothing. No wasted billions, no dead American soldiers, no dead innocent civilians.

Different situation, different choices made. No mystery there.


But you avoided my point.


You keep choosing the interpretation that puts the US in the worse or worst light. YOu disagree? Give me an example where you do the opposite, your best example.