Mark Levin: Congress can end birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution

[g5000]

Levin is a whiney little Limbaugh wanna be. Nothing he says is believable.

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of congress in the 1920's.

Sure I can refute it. He's wrong.

you said it now back it up.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Not an illegal, try again.

Under US jurisdiction. This is the ONLY condition necessary. You fail.

 

[Wolfstrike]

no doubt the democrats will bring up the issue again, after obama the alien leaves office

 

[g5000]

The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats.

Nope. It was meant to exclude diplomats who are immune from US jurisdiction, not children born here.

In fact, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted citizenship to anyone born here. It was vetoed twice by Johnson, but Congress overrode it with a two-thirds majority.

This was in the same time frame as the 14th Amendment. So your claim the framers of the 14th did not intend birthright citizenship is complete bullshit.

Didn't read the link, did ya? Read it and try again.

I provided the actual Congressional Record, dumbass. That trumps any out of context quotes from it.

And the Congressional Record makes it plain as day that all children born to parents under US jurisdiction are citizens. The ONLY exclusions were for children of foreign ministers and ambassadors and American Indians.

Like I said earlier, the sponsor of the 14th amendment overestimated the intelligence of people like you when he said all doubt was removed who was a citizen.

 

[Vigilante]

As only The Great One can explain!

What an idiot, he's talking out of his ass.

No, Congress can not.

FAIL.

Another asshole that knows

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

That is a lie. The ONLY condition US v Wong Kim Ark placed on citizenship was US jurisdiction. There was no requirement for the parents to be legal residents or gainfully employed.

Liar.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

As for the 14th amendment, the sponsor of that amendment (Jacob Howard) made it crystal clear that birthright citizenship was for everyone, excluding the children of foreign ministers and ambassadors.

Another Congressman (Doolittle) attempted to add a change to the 14th amendment which would exclude Indians, and Howard pointed out Indians were not under the jurisdiction of the US, and therefore the change was unnecessary.

http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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."


So you are wrong, Vigilante.
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.[1]
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Thanks for proving I'm RIGHT .... 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.[1]

Born in the U.S. from TWO ILLEGAL PARENTS THAT ARE FOREIGNERS DISQUALIFIES THE BABY FROM CITIZENSHIP, and Brennan FOOTNOTE, NOT the OPINION of the majority of the court, DOES NOT QUALIFY as law!

Thanks for making it EASY!

Hey, moron. Did you stop reading as soon as you hit the word "foreigners" and not read the rest of the sentence?

Jesus, I 've seen some willful blindness on this forum, but this is really something!

Foreigners WHO BELONG TO THE FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS OR FOREIGN MINISTERS.

Goddam, you are an idiot.

You can't even POST the correct part of the Amendment word for word!

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,

You SEE Commas between those words, separating objects?...they are 3 SEPARATE entities! NOT all ONE object.... Morons are YOU!

Why do you insist on tripling down on your stupidity? This is very weird.

I also find your lack of knowledge and thought weird, but then again, you are a liberal!

 

[Agit8r]

I can hardly be surprised when someone who has no knowledge of history can barely read as well. I'll try and dumb it down for you:

The 14th Amendment made birthright citizenship universal.

Before that it was the standard for all non-slaves, as with Andrew Jackson, whose parents were immigrants, living in an immigrant community.

We know that Andrew Jackson was considered an American citizen because he was eligible to become president.

Being born is not a crime in this country, so ignorant ramblings about a newborn baby being "illegal" means nothing to anyone with a brain.

ROTFLMFAO...... No, it didn't... let me educate a ******* 2 digit IQ'd liberal!

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians — because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, THE Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement — who, I’m guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.

Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such “plausible distinction(s)” before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some qualification to be here other than “lives within walking distance.”

But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.

Combine Justice Brennan’s footnote with America’s ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.

But THIS shit is what you left wing subversives want.... You fuckers should all be dispatched, as soon as possible to save the Republic from becoming Venezuela!

I'll try to dumb it down further, just to cater to your particular special needs:

Birthright citizenship was the standard before the 14th Amendment.

It was the standard before the supreme court existed.

It was the standard before any restrictive immigration law.

It was the standard before congress was given power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization" for those born elsewhere.

That is all.

It's a ***** for you when the law changed it! But thanks for playing! By your definition Blacks were citizens, & Indians were citizens before "a uniform rule of naturalization"....LOLOL!

No law has changed it. The Fourteenth Amendment merely clarified it for the bigots of that age (and for the bigots of this, if they were to have the brain-power to see clearly)

Strictly, as Howard explained for FREED SLAVES, nothing more, nothing less!

Oh, and since you brought it up, it was STRICTLY for that age 150 years ago!

It was only NEEDED for slaves, because it was already the standard for every other person born in the United States.

But that in no way means that it only applies to slaves. The 14th Amendment applies to every person born here OR naturalized according to the law. It says that in the plainest of language. Only a complete troglodyte could misunderstand it.

As one of the Framers of the 14th Amendment explained to an ignorant colleague:
“the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.”
-- Senator Lyman Trumbull; from debate on 14th Amendment (1868)

 

[Rotagilla]

Can't refute what he said so you attack the messenger, how leftist of you. The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats. It also excluded American Indians which were finally made American citizens by an act of congress in the 1920's.

Sure I can refute it. He's wrong.

you said it now back it up.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Not an illegal, try again.

Under US jurisdiction. This is the ONLY condition necessary. You fail.

"illegal" in illegal alien means against the law...that changes the dynamic entirely.

 

[OKTexas]

The one case the supreme court considered involved legal aliens, they have never ruled on a case involving criminal aliens. And yes, congress has every right to say illegals do not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the 14th Amendment in our naturalization laws.

That is not their call to make. That's the Supreme's decision.

Actually, no. The determination for how you become a citizen was given to congress….

Nope. It is SCOTUS property.

Nope, read article 1, section 8, clause 4.

 

[Agit8r]

As only The Great One can explain!

Yo, the 14th Amendment says Trump can kick all illegals out, including Anchor Babies!!! Go Trump! The News Broadcasters are just stupid people who have no clue!!!

A correct understanding of the intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and legislation passed by Congress in the late 19th century and in 1923 extending citizenship to American Indians provide ample proof that Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Simple legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president would be constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Read more at: Birthright Citizenship Not Mandated by Constitution | National Review Online

Yo, the legalization of illegals is Un-Constitutional! And Obama being a Constitutional Student knows this, so I say throw the bum in jail and throw away the key!!!


"GTP"
View attachment 47893

The Constitution enumerates no such power for congress to decide that. It particularly takes settles the matter with the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that people of all ethnicities are entitled to the standard--that those born here are American citizens. This can only be controverted by bigots and ignoramuses.

Yo, look it up, then get back to me? You dummies are losing your foothold on the American scene, so get use to it!!!

"GTP"
Yo, people are sick of this Black imposter!!!
View attachment 47903 View attachment 47903 View attachment 47903

I've read the Constitution. I also have the reading comprehension to understand it, unlike the retards who believe what some AM Radio demagogue, or a reality TV personality has to say about it. So go back to your info-tainment and leave the discussion of important issues to those of us who have the capacity to think and reason as adults.

 

[Agit8r]

The one case the supreme court considered involved legal aliens, they have never ruled on a case involving criminal aliens. And yes, congress has every right to say illegals do not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the 14th Amendment in our naturalization laws.

That is not their call to make. That's the Supreme's decision.

Actually, no. The determination for how you become a citizen was given to congress….

Nope. It is SCOTUS property.

Nope, read article 1, section 8, clause 4.

The congresses power over naturalization affect only those born outside the United States. Those born here have never needed to be naturalized.

 

[Agit8r]

Sure I can refute it. He's wrong.

you said it now back it up.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Not an illegal, try again.

Under US jurisdiction. This is the ONLY condition necessary. You fail.

"illegal" in illegal alien means against the law...that changes the dynamic entirely.

And yet, being born has never been a crime.

 

[OKTexas]

The one case the supreme court considered involved legal aliens, they have never ruled on a case involving criminal aliens. And yes, congress has every right to say illegals do not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the 14th Amendment in our naturalization laws.

They don't? A foreigner in this country illegally does not fall under the jurisdiction of US law?

Swing and a miss...strike three.....nice try...didn't work, though...

Ilegals, by definition, are under US jurisdiction. If they are not under US jurisdiction, then they aren't breaking any law. Ipso facto.

The Supreme Court, and the very sponsor of the 14th amendment himself, have said anyone born under US jurisdiction is a US citizen.

So you are the one who has struck out.

No, jurisdiction means that the foreigners have to OBEY the law of the land, nothing about citizenship with an anchor baby!.... You prove my statement that you simply don't understand English!

That is not how the framers of the 14th defined it.

 

[1stRambo]

As only The Great One can explain!

Yo, the 14th Amendment says Trump can kick all illegals out, including Anchor Babies!!! Go Trump! The News Broadcasters are just stupid people who have no clue!!!

A correct understanding of the intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and legislation passed by Congress in the late 19th century and in 1923 extending citizenship to American Indians provide ample proof that Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Simple legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president would be constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Read more at: Birthright Citizenship Not Mandated by Constitution | National Review Online

Yo, the legalization of illegals is Un-Constitutional! And Obama being a Constitutional Student knows this, so I say throw the bum in jail and throw away the key!!!


"GTP"
View attachment 47893

The Constitution enumerates no such power for congress to decide that. It particularly takes settles the matter with the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that people of all ethnicities are entitled to the standard--that those born here are American citizens. This can only be controverted by bigots and ignoramuses.

Yo, look it up, then get back to me? You dummies are losing your foothold on the American scene, so get use to it!!!

"GTP"
Yo, people are sick of this Black imposter!!!
View attachment 47903 View attachment 47903 View attachment 47903

I've read the Constitution. I also have the reading comprehension to understand it, unlike the retards who believe what some AM Radio demagogue, or a reality TV personality has to say about it. So go back to your info-tainment and leave the discussion of important issues to those of us who have the capacity to think and reason as adults.

Yo, okay, sorry, I didn`t know you were related to the lying asshole in the White House, carry on!

"GTP"

 

[2aguy]

you said it now back it up.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Not an illegal, try again.

Under US jurisdiction. This is the ONLY condition necessary. You fail.

"illegal" in illegal alien means against the law...that changes the dynamic entirely.

And yet, being born has never been a crime.

Seems like you can get the death penalty if your mother goes to Planned Parenthood.......

 

[OKTexas]

The one case the supreme court considered involved legal aliens, they have never ruled on a case involving criminal aliens. And yes, congress has every right to say illegals do not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the 14th Amendment in our naturalization laws.

They don't? A foreigner in this country illegally does not fall under the jurisdiction of US law?

Yes they fall under US law, but they owe political allegiance to a foreign power which according to the framers of the 14th they do not fall under the total jurisdiction of the US and they and their children are excluded from citizenship. I posted their intent in this thread, and others, read it.

Illegal immigrants do not owe allegiance to foreign powers. That term is reserved for diplomats and foreign ministers who reside here.

Jesus, is ANYONE reading the links I have provided multiple times?

Right, the links that have nothing to do with the subject, but carry on.

 

[1stRambo]

The one case the supreme court considered involved legal aliens, they have never ruled on a case involving criminal aliens. And yes, congress has every right to say illegals do not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the 14th Amendment in our naturalization laws.

That is not their call to make. That's the Supreme's decision.

Actually, no. The determination for how you become a citizen was given to congress….

Nope. It is SCOTUS property.

Nope, read article 1, section 8, clause 4.

The congresses power over naturalization affect only those born outside the United States. Those born here have never needed to be naturalized.

Yo, if the parents were illegal? Then the Baby is too!

"GTP"

 

[Vigilante]

ROTFLMFAO...... No, it didn't... let me educate a ******* 2 digit IQ'd liberal!

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians — because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, THE Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement — who, I’m guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.

Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such “plausible distinction(s)” before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some qualification to be here other than “lives within walking distance.”

But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.

Combine Justice Brennan’s footnote with America’s ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.

But THIS shit is what you left wing subversives want.... You fuckers should all be dispatched, as soon as possible to save the Republic from becoming Venezuela!

I'll try to dumb it down further, just to cater to your particular special needs:

Birthright citizenship was the standard before the 14th Amendment.

It was the standard before the supreme court existed.

It was the standard before any restrictive immigration law.

It was the standard before congress was given power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization" for those born elsewhere.

That is all.

It's a ***** for you when the law changed it! But thanks for playing! By your definition Blacks were citizens, & Indians were citizens before "a uniform rule of naturalization"....LOLOL!

No law has changed it. The Fourteenth Amendment merely clarified it for the bigots of that age (and for the bigots of this, if they were to have the brain-power to see clearly)

Strictly, as Howard explained for FREED SLAVES, nothing more, nothing less!

Oh, and since you brought it up, it was STRICTLY for that age 150 years ago!

It was only NEEDED for slaves, because it was already the standard for every other person born in the United States.

But that in no way means that it only applies to slaves. The 14th Amendment applies to every person born here OR naturalized according to the law. It says that in the plainest of language. Only a complete troglodyte could misunderstand it.

As one of the Framers of the 14th Amendment explained to an ignorant colleague:
“the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.”
-- Senator Lyman Trumbull; from debate on 14th Amendment (1868)

IF THEY QUALIFY TO BE A CITIZEN! BEING BORN OF 2 ILLEGAL ALIENS DOES NOT QUALIFY!

 

[Rotagilla]

you said it now back it up.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Not an illegal, try again.

Under US jurisdiction. This is the ONLY condition necessary. You fail.

"illegal" in illegal alien means against the law...that changes the dynamic entirely.

And yet, being born has never been a crime.

We didn't say THEY were criminals..their PARENTS are...nice try.

 

[Agit8r]

That is not their call to make. That's the Supreme's decision.

Actually, no. The determination for how you become a citizen was given to congress….

Nope. It is SCOTUS property.

Nope, read article 1, section 8, clause 4.

The congresses power over naturalization affect only those born outside the United States. Those born here have never needed to be naturalized.

Yo, if the parents were illegal? Then the Baby is too!

"GTP"

On what grounds?

 

[2aguy]

I'll try to dumb it down further, just to cater to your particular special needs:

Birthright citizenship was the standard before the 14th Amendment.

It was the standard before the supreme court existed.

It was the standard before any restrictive immigration law.

It was the standard before congress was given power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization" for those born elsewhere.

That is all.

It's a ***** for you when the law changed it! But thanks for playing! By your definition Blacks were citizens, & Indians were citizens before "a uniform rule of naturalization"....LOLOL!

No law has changed it. The Fourteenth Amendment merely clarified it for the bigots of that age (and for the bigots of this, if they were to have the brain-power to see clearly)

Strictly, as Howard explained for FREED SLAVES, nothing more, nothing less!

Oh, and since you brought it up, it was STRICTLY for that age 150 years ago!

It was only NEEDED for slaves, because it was already the standard for every other person born in the United States.

But that in no way means that it only applies to slaves. The 14th Amendment applies to every person born here OR naturalized according to the law. It says that in the plainest of language. Only a complete troglodyte could misunderstand it.

As one of the Framers of the 14th Amendment explained to an ignorant colleague:
“the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.”
-- Senator Lyman Trumbull; from debate on 14th Amendment (1868)

IF THEY QUALIFY TO BE A CITIZEN! BEING BORN OF 2 ILLEGAL ALIENS DOES NOT QUALIFY!

Wow.......looky, looky, allof a freakin sudden the lefties on the site have discovered the United States Constitution. Of course, like the 2nd Amendment, they have selective reading ability disorder..........

 

[OKTexas]

The reason you can't refute what he said in the framers of the 14th specifically said that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" was meant to exclude foreigners, aliens and diplomats.

Nope. It was meant to exclude diplomats who are immune from US jurisdiction, not children born here.

In fact, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted citizenship to anyone born here. It was vetoed twice by Johnson, but Congress overrode it with a two-thirds majority.

This was in the same time frame as the 14th Amendment. So your claim the framers of the 14th did not intend birthright citizenship is complete bullshit.

Didn't read the link, did ya? Read it and try again.

I provided the actual Congressional Record, dumbass. That trumps any out of context quotes from it.

And the Congressional Record makes it plain as day that all children born to parents under US jurisdiction are citizens. The ONLY exclusions were for children of foreign ministers and ambassadors and American Indians.

Like I said earlier, the sponsor of the 14th amendment overestimated the intelligence of people like you when he said all doubt was removed who was a citizen.

Right, that's why it excluded American Indians, right? Congress passed a law in the 1920's to make them US citizens.