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

[Correll]

You don't have the credibility for me to click on a link. YOu have a point to make, make it, concisely as you can.


What is your point with that post? Just to smear America?

There is no express immigration clause, right wingers. It is about being faithful to our express supreme law of the land.

Your heart belongs to Mexico. It is morally wrong of you to swear a false allegiance to America.

lol. we know where the mountains of the True caucasians are.

Your gibberish is noted.


My point stands. Your loyalty is to Mexico, not America.

you have to be a True caucasian for me to believe you.

Your gibberish is noted.


My point stands. Your loyalty is to Mexico, not America.

 

[pknopp]

You're so stupid.

You fell for this lie in the 2018 election.

You're buying this lie again.

trump can't do anything about the 14th Amendment.

trump is making a total fool of you and everyone like you.

I haven't fallen for anything. The Constitution and Case law backs Trump on ending Birthright Citizenship.

Ok so trump told you in 2018 that he was going to change the 14th amendment.

There was no change. No executive order. No court case. Nothing has been done.

trump made this announcement a week ago. No executive order. No court case. No change. Nothing has been done or even debated.

All trump is doing is lying to you.

The constitution and case law doesn't back trump or you. Just saying it doesn't make it true. If the constitution and case law doesn't back up birth right citizenship then why is it still law of the land? If the constitution and case law doesn't support it the case law rulings would have made birth right citizenship illegal.

Why do you think that just saying something makes it true?

Where in the 14th amendment does it say those who are born in the United States aren't citizens by birth? What court case law says those who are born in the United States aren't citizens by birth?

Here's the exact text of the amendment. The very first sentence of that amendment says that anyone born here is a citizen. Plain English for anyone who is an American understands. There are no words of slaves or anyone's skin color so don't bring that up because there is no wording in that regard. It was written for all Americans.

I have never believed you're an American. I have always believed you're a russian. In russia working from one of the bot installations to throw the 2020 election to trump and create hate and division in our nation. You fit the profile exactly.

Either that or you like to lie or live in a very strange fantasy world.

Text of the 14th Amendment.

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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

SUBJECT TO JURISDICTION

Means you have to have LEGAL STATUS in THE US

No it doesn't.

Yes it does, Liar.

The 14th was written to stop Southern Democrats from Denying The Rights of Citizenship to The Children of Their Former Slaves.

Emancipated Slaves or Free Slaves, now called Freemen came under The Jurisdiction of The US Legal System.

Prior to that, they were treated as property in The South and had No Civil Rights in a Court of Law.

Their Children when born became US Citizens No Matter what The Southern Democrats did to try to discriminate against them.

The 14th ensured that The Children of Former Slaves were now US Citizens and this could be enforced via Federal Law.

The Democrats were powerless to stop the children of Freemen from claiming the rights of US Citizenship after the passage of the 14th.

It's been pointed out over and over that the Supreme Court has already ruled on this and the ruling had nothing to do with slaves.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Like them or not women have the ultimate right to be nude as Melania and sell their bodies for the money or cover up and be modest, it is their ultimate choice.

You seem to be really bad at reading and comprehending or, attempting to pivot and obfuscate. (maybe both)

My whole point is that Omar should stand up for women who have NO RIGHTS! If Omar has a 'choice' they why doesn't she remove that symbol of women's oppression and promote FREE CHOICE of Muslim women?

Probably because deep down inside, she doesn't believe in it.

 

[Issa]

Did you notice how you said Muslim women and your examples are in Iran while there are 56 Muslim majority countries? How wide is your paint brush ?

So what? Some women around the world don't count? What kind of hateful crap is that? These poor women around the world are being abused and punished for the simple reason of not wanting to wear what their husbands' religion decrees. Instead of bleating about her hatred of Israel and America maybe she could use her platform for protesting and maybe even reforming Islam.

I've lived ina Muslim country and I have tons of Muslim friends from all over and they all chose to wear the hijab under no pressure.
That's if I say all American American women are whore and gold diggers like Melania.
And nobody buys your bullshit about defending Muslim women rights, 1 in 4 US women said they were sexually assaulted...that's what should be your concern.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no express immigration clause, right wingers. It is about being faithful to our express supreme law of the land.

Your heart belongs to Mexico. It is morally wrong of you to swear a false allegiance to America.

lol. we know where the mountains of the True caucasians are.

Your gibberish is noted.


My point stands. Your loyalty is to Mexico, not America.

you have to be a True caucasian for me to believe you.

Your gibberish is noted.


My point stands. Your loyalty is to Mexico, not America.

who cares. you need a superior argument.

 

[Correll]

Your heart belongs to Mexico. It is morally wrong of you to swear a false allegiance to America.

lol. we know where the mountains of the True caucasians are.

Your gibberish is noted.


My point stands. Your loyalty is to Mexico, not America.

you have to be a True caucasian for me to believe you.

Your gibberish is noted.


My point stands. Your loyalty is to Mexico, not America.

who cares. you need a superior argument.

Pointing out that you are loyal to Mexico, instead of America, is relevant to all questions of policies.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. we know where the mountains of the True caucasians are.

Your gibberish is noted.


My point stands. Your loyalty is to Mexico, not America.

you have to be a True caucasian for me to believe you.

Your gibberish is noted.


My point stands. Your loyalty is to Mexico, not America.

who cares. you need a superior argument.

Pointing out that you are loyal to Mexico, instead of America, is relevant to all questions of policies.

you only have an inferior argument.

 

[Correll]

Your gibberish is noted.


My point stands. Your loyalty is to Mexico, not America.

you have to be a True caucasian for me to believe you.

Your gibberish is noted.


My point stands. Your loyalty is to Mexico, not America.

who cares. you need a superior argument.

Pointing out that you are loyal to Mexico, instead of America, is relevant to all questions of policies.

you only have an inferior argument.

Says the man who's primary form of argument is to spout gibberish.

 

[danielpalos]

you have to be a True caucasian for me to believe you.

Your gibberish is noted.


My point stands. Your loyalty is to Mexico, not America.

who cares. you need a superior argument.

Pointing out that you are loyal to Mexico, instead of America, is relevant to all questions of policies.

you only have an inferior argument.

Says the man who's primary form of argument is to spout gibberish.

says the person who understands nothing but still wants to be taken seriously.

 

[Leo123]

I've lived ina Muslim country and I have tons of Muslim friends from all over and they all chose to wear the hijab under no pressure.
That's if I say all American American women are whore and gold diggers like Melania.
And nobody buys your bullshit about defending Muslim women rights, 1 in 4 US women said they were sexually assaulted...that's what should be your concern.

No link, no support, pivoting, obfuscating and lying. I don't give a shit where you lived nor do I give a shit about YOUR opinion of Melania. You have a very inflated opinion of yourself. I posted PROOF you post nothing but blathering bullshit.

 

[Kondor3]

I haven't fallen for anything. The Constitution and Case law backs Trump on ending Birthright Citizenship.

Ok so trump told you in 2018 that he was going to change the 14th amendment.

There was no change. No executive order. No court case. Nothing has been done.

trump made this announcement a week ago. No executive order. No court case. No change. Nothing has been done or even debated.

All trump is doing is lying to you.

The constitution and case law doesn't back trump or you. Just saying it doesn't make it true. If the constitution and case law doesn't back up birth right citizenship then why is it still law of the land? If the constitution and case law doesn't support it the case law rulings would have made birth right citizenship illegal.

Why do you think that just saying something makes it true?

Where in the 14th amendment does it say those who are born in the United States aren't citizens by birth? What court case law says those who are born in the United States aren't citizens by birth?

Here's the exact text of the amendment. The very first sentence of that amendment says that anyone born here is a citizen. Plain English for anyone who is an American understands. There are no words of slaves or anyone's skin color so don't bring that up because there is no wording in that regard. It was written for all Americans.

I have never believed you're an American. I have always believed you're a russian. In russia working from one of the bot installations to throw the 2020 election to trump and create hate and division in our nation. You fit the profile exactly.

Either that or you like to lie or live in a very strange fantasy world.

Text of the 14th Amendment.

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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

SUBJECT TO JURISDICTION

Means you have to have LEGAL STATUS in THE US

No it doesn't.

Yes it does, Liar.

The 14th was written to stop Southern Democrats from Denying The Rights of Citizenship to The Children of Their Former Slaves.

Emancipated Slaves or Free Slaves, now called Freemen came under The Jurisdiction of The US Legal System.

Prior to that, they were treated as property in The South and had No Civil Rights in a Court of Law.

Their Children when born became US Citizens No Matter what The Southern Democrats did to try to discriminate against them.

The 14th ensured that The Children of Former Slaves were now US Citizens and this could be enforced via Federal Law.

The Democrats were powerless to stop the children of Freemen from claiming the rights of US Citizenship after the passage of the 14th.

It's been pointed out over and over that the Supreme Court has already ruled on this and the ruling had nothing to do with slaves.

Time for it to rule again... this time, with a 5-4 bench...

 

[Correll]

Your gibberish is noted.


My point stands. Your loyalty is to Mexico, not America.

who cares. you need a superior argument.

Pointing out that you are loyal to Mexico, instead of America, is relevant to all questions of policies.

you only have an inferior argument.

Says the man who's primary form of argument is to spout gibberish.

says the person who understands nothing but still wants to be taken seriously.

I understand that you are loyal to Mexico, and consider America and Americans to be your enemies.

 

[busybee01]

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.

I guess we'll see in 2020 how popular Trump is. But if he loses, how much you want to bet you leftists will blame Trump when the Dem President sends this economy in the opposite direction?

The economy is likely headed for at least a slowdown or a contraction thanks to Trump's trade war.

 

[busybee01]

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.

You determine what a American wears? I think not.

 

[Leo123]

You determine what a American wears? I think not.

Apparently the Muslim religion does though when it comes to Omar.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

You determine what a American wears? I think not.

I can't determine what anybody wears, but I certainly can judge them on it.

One of the biggest problems we're having with immigration on the right is their inability to assimilate into the US. They want to come here, not learn our language, bring their customs and culture with them. Look......if that's the way you feel, you should have stayed where you were at, not come here.

When people make comparisons to the European movement to today, the people back then left everything behind. Most came legally, strived day after day to be a real American and blend into their new society. They came here to contribute, not take away. They changed for us--not for them.

The people coming here today not only want to get into the country, but bring their last country with them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I guess we'll see in 2020 how popular Trump is. But if he loses, how much you want to bet you leftists will blame Trump when the Dem President sends this economy in the opposite direction?

The economy is likely headed for at least a slowdown or a contraction thanks to Trump's trade war.

Maybe, but if so, only temporary.

You're not going to get any major changes done without paying some kind of price. If change were that painless and easy, somebody would have made such changes years ago. And to be honest, with the exception of China, the trade wars didn't pan out too badly.

 

[busybee01]

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.

It very much pertains to anchor babies. Anyone who is born in the US regardless of parentage is considered a American citizen Madison stated this in 1798 which was 221 years ago. Numerous statesmen also made it clear that being born in the US made you a American citizen even if your parents are not a citizen. It was also made clear during the debate that children of non-citizens born in the US would be American citizens.

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court correctly interprets the historical debates over citizenship and uses that as the basis to determine intent.

"During the debates in the Senate in January and February, 1866, upon the Civil Rights Bill, Mr. Trumbull, the chairman of the committee which reported the bill, moved to amend the first sentence thereof so as to read,

“All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color.”

Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked, “Whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?” Mr. Trumbull answered, “Undoubtedly,” and asked, “is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?” Mr. Cowan replied, “The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese.” Mr. Trumbull rejoined: “The law makes no such distinction, and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.” Mr. Reverdy Johnson suggested that the words, “without distinction of color,” should be omitted as unnecessary, and said:

“The amendment, as it stands, is that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to a foreign power, shall, by virtue of birth, be citizens. To that I am willing to consent,

[…]

and that comprehends all persons, without any reference to race or color, who may be so born.”

And Mr. Trumbull agreed that striking out those words would make no difference in the meaning, but thought it better that they should be retained to remove all possible doubt. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st sess. pt. 1, pp. 498, 573, 574.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, as originally framed by the House of Representatives, lacked the opening sentence. When it came before the Senate in May, 1866, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, moved to amend by prefixing the sentence in its present form (less the words “or naturalized”), and reading,

“All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State herein they reside.”

Mr. Cowan objected upon the ground that the Mongolian race ought to be excluded, and said:

“Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? . . . I do not know how my honorable friend from California looks upon Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that, within proper restraints, allowing that State and the other Pacific States to manage them as they may see fit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as in their wisdom they see fit.”

Mr. Conness, of California, replied:

“The proposition before us relates simply, in that respect, to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the Nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. . . . We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this Constitutional Amendment that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of

[…]

the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”

Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st sess. pt. 4, pp. 2890-2892. It does not appear to have been suggested in either House of Congress that children born in the United States of Chinese parents would not come within the terms and effect of the leading sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted this Amendment of the Constitution must be sought in the words of the Amendment, and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words. But the statements above quoted are valuable as contemporaneous opinions of jurists and statesmen upon the legal meaning of the words themselves, and are, at the least, interesting as showing that the application of the Amendment to the Chinese race was considered, and not overlooked."

Also when you read the amendment itself, the meaning is clear. Any baby born in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of the US. If it was meant only for the children of citizens, it would have been stated as such.

 

[busybee01]

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.

You determine what a American wears? I think not.

I can't determine what anybody wears, but I certainly can judge them on it.

One of the biggest problems we're having with immigration on the right is their inability to assimilate into the US. They want to come here, not learn our language, bring their customs and culture with them. Look......if that's the way you feel, you should have stayed where you were at, not come here.

When people make comparisons to the European movement to today, the people back then left everything behind. Most came legally, strived day after day to be a real American and blend into their new society. They came here to contribute, not take away. They changed for us--not for them.

The people coming here today not only want to get into the country, but bring their last country with them.

You are a bigoted asshole. What someone wears is none of your business. Assimilation has nothing to do with what they wear especially when it is a part of their religion. Or is there a official state religion?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

You determine what a American wears? I think not.

I can't determine what anybody wears, but I certainly can judge them on it.

One of the biggest problems we're having with immigration on the right is their inability to assimilate into the US. They want to come here, not learn our language, bring their customs and culture with them. Look......if that's the way you feel, you should have stayed where you were at, not come here.

When people make comparisons to the European movement to today, the people back then left everything behind. Most came legally, strived day after day to be a real American and blend into their new society. They came here to contribute, not take away. They changed for us--not for them.

The people coming here today not only want to get into the country, but bring their last country with them.

You are a bigoted asshole. What someone wears is none of your business. Assimilation has nothing to do with what they wear especially when it is a part of their religion. Or is there a official state religion?

She has shown her resistance with assimilation in more ways than her attire. What she wears certainly tells me she's just another one of those that came here with her country in her backpack. Those are the kinds of people we don't need here.