S.C. needs to keep nose out of immigration policy making decisions, Trump v. Barbara

[pknopp]

I disagree. The intent was not to allow what is going on today and the term jurisdiction needs to be revisited. Also, there are diplomatic exceptions, so clearly it wasn't meant to be absolute.

Which is why they specifically mentioned this exemption.

The biggest issue for me is the intent. They didn't foresee this being abused as it is today because we didn't have an immigration problem as we do today. Most Democrats support it, not because of their desire to uphold the Constitution in the strictest sense, but as a social justice platform. It is obviously detrimental to the US, but they don't seem to care.

Those against the 2nd can also argue the founders could have never perceived today's weapons.

If you believe it a problem the founders did provide a solution. Get working on a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[Care4all]

According to you they are, but not according to those who framed and helped to ratify the 14th Amendment.

Simply incorrect....

Birthplace Alone Does Not Confer Citizenship

Arguments in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of those temporarily or unlawfully present in the U.S. misinterpret the wording of the 14th Amendment.

thedispatch.com

Howard accepted children born of ALL PERSONS, got citizenship at birth, except two groups not under our jurisdiction in the 14th.

So did the senate, when the Amendment was passed.


What other speeches were on the senate floor debating what all persons meant and who would included?

The 1866 Senate debates over what "all persons" meant in the 14th Amendment were fiery. Many of the arguments centered on whether children of non-citizens, particularly from specific immigrant groups, would automatically become Americans simply by being born on U.S. soil.


Several prominent senators took the floor to debate this exact question:

1. The Skeptic: Senator Edgar Cowan (Pennsylvania)​

Senator Cowan was fiercely opposed to broad birthright citizenship. He worried that the "all persons" language would give automatic citizenship to the children of Asian immigrants and traveling communities.

"I am really desirous to know whether it is the point of the Committee to naturalize all other classes of persons... I take it that the people called Gypsies, as well as the Chinese... are to be citizens? Is it proposed that the people of California are to have now and then introduced among them a flood of Asiatics?"

Cowan argued that to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S., a person had to pay taxes and owe full political allegiance. He didn't believe the children of these groups should qualify simply because they were born in the country.

2. The Architect: Senator Lyman Trumbull (Illinois)​

Senator Trumbull was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the man who drafted the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (the precursor to the 14th Amendment). He directly answered Cowan's fears about Chinese and Gypsy children becoming citizens:

"Undoubtedly... To be 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States means in no way or manner subject to a foreign power. It's a complete jurisdiction, to be sure, but it's that jurisdiction which the United States has over its own citizens... The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That is the law of the land now."

Trumbull argued that as long as a child was born on U.S. soil and wasn't the child of a foreign king or ambassador, they were subject to the laws of the U.S. and therefore citizens.

3. The California Defender: Senator John Conness (California)​

Because Cowan brought up Chinese immigrants in California, Senator John Conness stood up to defend the broad reading of "all persons." He acknowledged the intense racism against Chinese workers at the time but firmly supported making their children citizens.

"The proposition before us... relates simply to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California... and it is proposed that they shall be citizens... We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment."

He argued that keeping a class of people permanently separated from citizenship, despite being born on the soil, was anti-American and dangerous.

The Big Takeaway​

The debate makes one thing very clear: Both the supporters and the opponents of the 14th Amendment understood exactly what it was going to do. Opponents like Cowan argued against it because they knew it would grant citizenship to the U.S.-born children of all immigrants, including Asian and undocumented travelers. Proponents like Trumbull and Conness supported it precisely for that same reason.


This 1866 debate later became the heavy foundation for the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which officially cemented birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants.

Birthright Citizenship Under the U.S. Constitution

The 14th Amendment has long been understood to grant American citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[Blaster]

Simply incorrect....

Howard accepted children born of ALL PERSONS, got citizenship at birth, except two groups not under our jurisdiction in the 14th.

So did the senate, when the Amendment was passed.


What other speeches were on the senate floor debating what all persons meant and who would included?

The 1866 Senate debates over what "all persons" meant in the 14th Amendment were fiery. Many of the arguments centered on whether children of non-citizens, particularly from specific immigrant groups, would automatically become Americans simply by being born on U.S. soil.


Several prominent senators took the floor to debate this exact question:

1. The Skeptic: Senator Edgar Cowan (Pennsylvania)​

Senator Cowan was fiercely opposed to broad birthright citizenship. He worried that the "all persons" language would give automatic citizenship to the children of Asian immigrants and traveling communities.





Cowan argued that to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S., a person had to pay taxes and owe full political allegiance. He didn't believe the children of these groups should qualify simply because they were born in the country.

2. The Architect: Senator Lyman Trumbull (Illinois)​

Senator Trumbull was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the man who drafted the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (the precursor to the 14th Amendment). He directly answered Cowan's fears about Chinese and Gypsy children becoming citizens:





Trumbull argued that as long as a child was born on U.S. soil and wasn't the child of a foreign king or ambassador, they were subject to the laws of the U.S. and therefore citizens.

3. The California Defender: Senator John Conness (California)​

Because Cowan brought up Chinese immigrants in California, Senator John Conness stood up to defend the broad reading of "all persons." He acknowledged the intense racism against Chinese workers at the time but firmly supported making their children citizens.







He argued that keeping a class of people permanently separated from citizenship, despite being born on the soil, was anti-American and dangerous.

The Big Takeaway​

The debate makes one thing very clear: Both the supporters and the opponents of the 14th Amendment understood exactly what it was going to do. Opponents like Cowan argued against it because they knew it would grant citizenship to the U.S.-born children of all immigrants, including Asian and undocumented travelers. Proponents like Trumbull and Conness supported it precisely for that same reason.


This 1866 debate later became the heavy foundation for the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which officially cemented birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants.


Would you like to look at that Supreme Court decision and how it interpreted these speeches?

Nice try but you are wrong.

 

[Care4all]

Nice try but you are wrong.

When the SC rules and you lose, will you eat crow and apologize?

 

[pknopp]

When the SC rules and you lose, will you eat crow and apologize?

Deep state. LOL. Trump's appointed deep state.

 

[Blaster]

When the SC rules and you lose, will you eat crow and apologize?

No

 

[Care4all]

No

Only strong and confident men, apologize when they are wrong!

 

[Blaster]

Only strong and confident men, apologize when they are wrong!

I'm almost never wrong.

 

[SweetTea]

Those against the 2nd can also argue the founders could have never perceived today's weapons.

The 2nd Ammendment has already been violated in many large, blue cities. Maybe each state/city can adopt their own rules regarding flfederal law. It seems the precedent has already been set by Democrats with gun laws and providing sanctuary for those on the country illegally.

My state can simply say we don't recognize a person as a citizen and treat them accordingly.

 

[pknopp]

The 2nd Ammendment has already been violated in many large, blue cities. Maybe each state/city can adopt their own rules regarding flfederal law. It seems the precedent has already been set by Democrats with gun laws and providing sanctuary for those on the country illegally.

My state can simply say we don't recognize a person as a citizen and treat them accordingly.

The Supreme Court has done a decent job of overturning laws that violate the 2nd. Yes states have enacted them but mostly they do not stand.

 

[DGS49]

Birthright citizenship is BAD PUBLIC POLICY. No one can point to a single benefit, which is why Democrats unanimously support it.

The language of the 14th is ambiguous, and the USSC should use that ambiguity to correct this awful policy mistake, even if it has prevailed virtually since the beginning. They can declare that the children of illegals are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the same State as their parents.

 

[SweetTea]

The Supreme Court has done a decent job of overturning laws that violate the 2nd. Yes states have enacted them but mostly they do not stand.

Many blue cities, NYC for example, price many out of being able to afford a gun with permits and training. They also heavily restrict the way they can be carried and stored. Unloaded, locked and with ammo in a different location defeats the purpose of having one in the first place.

Let's start adding some restrictions to birthright citizenship. Why not?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I disagree. The intent was not to allow what is going on today and the term jurisdiction needs to be revisited. Also, there are diplomatic exceptions, so clearly it wasn't meant to be absolute.

The biggest issue for me is the intent. They didn't foresee this being abused as it is today because we didn't have an immigration problem as we do today. Most Democrats support it, not because of their desire to uphold the Constitution in the strictest sense, but as a social justice platform. It is obviously detrimental to the US, but they don't seem to care.

The intent was from an 19th century perspective. You're trying to make it fit the 21st century.

The Constitution is old and out of date for huge parts.

You want it to be "intent", but I bet you don't want the 2A to be about "intent".... it's just you trying to justify something you know isn't there.

 

[SweetTea]

The intent was from an 19th century perspective. You're trying to make it fit the 21st century.

The Constitution is old and out of date for huge parts.

You want it to be "intent", but I bet you don't want the 2A to be about "intent".... it's just you trying to justify something you know isn't there.

I already brought this up. The 2nd Ammendment has already been violated to a large degree in many cities and states by the addition of red tape. Let's add that red tape to birthright citizenship.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I already brought this up. The 2nd Ammendment has already been violated to a large degree in many cities and states by the addition of red tape. Let's add that red tape to birthright citizenship.

I bet you don't even care to understand what it means. I bet you don't care to find the intent of it.

 

[pknopp]

Many blue cities, NYC for example, price many out of being able to afford a gun with permits and training. They also heavily restrict the way they can be carried and stored. Unloaded, locked and with ammo in a different location defeats the purpose of having one in the first place.

Let's start adding some restrictions to birthright citizenship. Why not?

The Supreme Court threw out most of NY restrictions.

 

[SweetTea]

I bet you don't even care to understand what it means. I bet you don't care to find the intent of it.

And here come the excuses as to why it is ok to add restrictions to the 2nd but not the 14th.

 

[pknopp]

And here come the excuses as to why it is ok to add restrictions to the 2nd but not the 14th.

If its OK for one, its OK for all.

(Its not OK for any outside of an amendment.)

 

[frigidweirdo]

And here come the excuses as to why it is ok to add restrictions to the 2nd but not the 14th.

Nope. We're talking about YOU and your inconsistencies. I understand the 2A, I understand what it means. I don't always like it, but that's the Constitution. I think it should be changed. But until then, it is what it is.

But no right is unlimited.

 

[SweetTea]

The Supreme Court threw out most of NY restrictions.

Not the transport rule which is ridiculous. Also, there are many restrictions on where a legal gun holder and permit holder cannot carry, for example, on federal property. How is that legal based on the 2nd Ammendment? The answer is that it isn't, but the Supreme Cort allowed it. They interpreted it in a way that it was not written.