Making sense of Trump v. Barbara and Trump's E.O. "Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship"

[DigitalDrifter]

We also know the 1st amendment is being taken advantage of.
It allows anybody to wave any flag they want, even the NAZI flag.
But if you want to change it, get 2/3rds of congress and 3/4ths of the states to amend the constitution, and you can have it the way you want it.

Obviously, we will never get a two-thirds majority on anything. Certainly in this case, it is never going to happen, since as WE ALL KNOW, the left wants America trampled to death by the rest of the world.

 

[johnwk]

I think that the 14th amendment settled that question by it's enactment.
Because it made citizens of the offspring of people in that very class.

Well, thinking is an unsubstantiated opinion.

The simple truth is, an exhaustive review of the debates during the making of the Fourteenth Amendment is void of any evidence whatsoever to even remotely conclude its drafters, or the people when adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, knowingly and willingly intended it to include within the meaning of a natural-born United States citizen, children born to foreign nationals on American soil who violated or subverted U.S. statutory laws upon their entry into the United States.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide that evidence.

Currently, unwritten federal policy, and only unwritten federal policy, not statutory law, now recognizes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, born on American soil, as a natural born citizen of the U.S. (See: 8 U.S. Code § 1401(a), which begins:

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof")

An extensive review of the debates of the 39th Congress, which crafted the 14th Amendment, strongly indicates the qualifier ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " is a bar to bestowing natural-born United States citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please provide the documentation here.

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story

 

[postman]

Well, thinking is an unsubstantiated opinion.

The simple truth is, an exhaustive review of the debates during the making of the Fourteenth Amendment is void of any evidence whatsoever to even remotely conclude its drafters, or the people when adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, knowingly and willingly intended it to include within the meaning of a natural-born United States citizen, children born to foreign nationals on American soil who violated or subverted U.S. statutory laws upon their entry into the United States.

Everything you just said, about foreign nationals (africans) on American soil, who violated US statutory laws (the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves, signed by President Thomas Jefferson) upon their entry into the United States.

The drafters of the amendment intended to grant their offspring birthright citizenship also.

So what's the difference between Africans illegally smuggled into the US and Mexicans, or South Americans illegally smuggled into the US?

Give us an iota of difference in their status.

 

[postman]

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof")

An extensive review of the debates of the 39th Congress, which crafted the 14th Amendment, strongly indicates the qualifier ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " is a bar to bestowing natural-born United States citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please provide the documentation here.

I think the best way to illustrate who, and who isn't subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Did you see the movie Lethal Weapon 2. Where the South African ambassador told the Detective (Mel Gibson) that he couldn't give him, so much as a parking ticket.

Under the jurisdiction means that our laws apply to you. As is clear that our laws don't apply to diplomats, or invading armies, or the native american indians (not taxed)

So the question, are illegal aliens subject to our jurisdiction?
Hell yes. Without being subject to our jurisdiction, they would be like the South African diplomat, that we couldn't detain, arrest, or even give a parking ticket to.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Well, thinking is an unsubstantiated opinion.

The simple truth is, an exhaustive review of the debates during the making of the Fourteenth Amendment is void of any evidence whatsoever to even remotely conclude its drafters, or the people when adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, knowingly and willingly intended it to include within the meaning of a natural-born United States citizen, children born to foreign nationals on American soil who violated or subverted U.S. statutory laws upon their entry into the United States.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide that evidence.

Currently, unwritten federal policy, and only unwritten federal policy, not statutory law, now recognizes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, born on American soil, as a natural born citizen of the U.S. (See: 8 U.S. Code § 1401(a), which begins:

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof")

An extensive review of the debates of the 39th Congress, which crafted the 14th Amendment, strongly indicates the qualifier ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " is a bar to bestowing natural-born United States citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please provide the documentation here.

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story

So you opinion is better. OK. Tink so.

 

[postman]

So you opinion is better. OK. Tink so.

As with anything in the constitution, you can always say, they should have thought about that, when they wrote it.

When they wrote the 1st amendment, they should have envisioned the internet, and instant communication around the world.

When they wrote the second, in an era of muskets, they should have imagined citizens with weapons that could out shoot an entire platoon.

Or when they wrote the forth, that someone could carry their entire life's story, and fit it in their shirt pocket.

But none of that has a bearing the extent a right granted, based on historical changes.