Texas denies anchor babies birth certificates

[Ravi]

Senator Howard, who wrote the 14th amendment also wrote this essay on the amendment:

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.

For those who want to protect the constitution, this shows illegal aliens are not covered under the 14th amendment.
I would guess the true idiot is one who does not do their research.

Irony. You did not do your research.

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

You all may all read Jacob Howard's comments along with me from the Congressional Record. I will bold the most important part, and color the piece which was selectively taken out of context by Jackson:

"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 thes 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."

Unfortunately, Jacob Howard did not realize the depth of mental incapacity of future nativists when he uttered that last sentence.

Howard, the sponsor of the 14th amendment, was clearly saying that only the foreign/alien children born here of ambassadors and foreign ministers are not citizens and that everyone else is.

He removed all doubt.

Yep. And the amendment was needed to keep politicians from deciding which groups they deemed worthy of citizenship. Which is what Trump wants to do. It really doesn't get more fascist that that.

That includes our current President who wants to bring in high skilled tech job workers.
Yes we want new citizens that will contribute for the better to our country.
How is it working out for California with so many of their illegals?
Not very well.

No offense to you peach, but do you actually have reasoning abilities?

 

[Care4all]

It would be fun watching a nativist try to explain how a foreigner/alien here on a visa does not have an allegiance to their home country while an illegal foreigner does.

All of their arguments have been thoroughly gutted, and yet they keep going!

Amazing.

Energizer bunnies is what they are....

 

[peach174]

You are missing the point and I'm sorry that it seems so many of this nation no longer understand what it means .

what what means? what's your point? that you want to decide citizenship of children based on what you think the kid's parents are allegiant to?

do you see anything about allegiance in the 14th amendment?

We were talking about the Supreme Court case (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) keep up with the conversation.

the one based on the 14th amendment. so do you see anything about allegiance in the 14th amendment? why do you think allegiance matters?

Why does allegiance matter?
Would you rather the USA be Mexico?

what i want is irrelevant - as is your question.
do you see anything about allegiance in the 14th amendment?

You have a one track mind.
You have taken it out of context.
No one has said that the word is in the 14th amendment.
We were talking about the Supreme Court case:
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.

 

[peach174]

Senator Howard, who wrote the 14th amendment also wrote this essay on the amendment:

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.

For those who want to protect the constitution, this shows illegal aliens are not covered under the 14th amendment.
I would guess the true idiot is one who does not do their research.

Irony. You did not do your research.

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

You all may all read Jacob Howard's comments along with me from the Congressional Record. I will bold the most important part, and color the piece which was selectively taken out of context by Jackson:

"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 thes 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."

Unfortunately, Jacob Howard did not realize the depth of mental incapacity of future nativists when he uttered that last sentence.

Howard, the sponsor of the 14th amendment, was clearly saying that only the foreign/alien children born here of ambassadors and foreign ministers are not citizens and that everyone else is.

He removed all doubt.

Yep. And the amendment was needed to keep politicians from deciding which groups they deemed worthy of citizenship. Which is what Trump wants to do. It really doesn't get more fascist that that.

That includes our current President who wants to bring in high skilled tech job workers.
Yes we want new citizens that will contribute for the better to our country.
How is it working out for California with so many of their illegals?
Not very well.

No offense to you peach, but do you actually have reasoning abilities?

yes I do but you don't seem to.

 

[ogibillm]

what what means? what's your point? that you want to decide citizenship of children based on what you think the kid's parents are allegiant to?

do you see anything about allegiance in the 14th amendment?

We were talking about the Supreme Court case (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) keep up with the conversation.

the one based on the 14th amendment. so do you see anything about allegiance in the 14th amendment? why do you think allegiance matters?

Why does allegiance matter?
Would you rather the USA be Mexico?

what i want is irrelevant - as is your question.
do you see anything about allegiance in the 14th amendment?

You have a one track mind.
You have taken it out of context.
No one has said that the word is in the 14th amendment.
We were talking about the Supreme Court case:
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.

right. so he was born a citizen and never stopped being a citizen. he didn't renounce his citizenship at any time. but he never had to proclaim his allegiance to be a citizen, and the allegiance of his parents had nothing to do with it.

how hard is that?

 

[Jackson]

A diplomat who is accredited by the United States with immunity is not under US jurisdiction, by definition. They are under the jurisdiction of their home country even though they are on US soil. They are performing official duties for their government while they are here. That is what the "allegiance" thing is all about. It has a very narrow meaning and has nothing to do with any other foreigners.

If it did, you would run into a contradiction back when you all agreed that birthright citizenship applied to foreigners here legally. If the "allegiance" exception applied to foreigners other than diplomats, then the children of those here legally would not have birthright citizenship.

So you clearly have a serious misunderstanding of the allegiance exception.

If the "allegiance" exception applied to foreigners other than diplomats, then the children of those here legally would not have birthright citizenship.

Just as the deportation laws are not enforced, the same goes for the amendments! We all know that.

 

[Jackson]

Senator Howard, who wrote the 14th amendment also wrote this essay on the amendment:

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.

For those who want to protect the constitution, this shows illegal aliens are not covered under the 14th amendment.
I would guess the true idiot is one who does not do their research.

Irony. You did not do your research.

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

You all may all read Jacob Howard's comments along with me from the Congressional Record. I will bold the most important part, and color the piece which was selectively taken out of context by Jackson:

"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."

Unfortunately, Jacob Howard did not realize the depth of mental incapacity of future nativists when he uttered that last sentence.

Howard, the sponsor of the 14th amendment, was clearly saying that only the foreign/alien children born here of ambassadors and foreign ministers are not citizens and that everyone else is.

He removed all doubt.

I assert he would have said " This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States 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." if that was what he meant. He made a point of saying, foreigners, comma, aliens, comma who belong to the families of ambassadors. Istead of commans, he could have listed the same as, what commas sometimes intend. Like this

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.

again, you're missing the meaning of those words. they do not mean what you are claiming.
it's also hard to credit the punctuation to him when he only spoke the words and did not write them.

i would say that if they were to mean what you claim and he was making a list he would have needed to throw in an 'and' or 'or'

I wasn't aware that he didn't write this. Can you give me a link to that?

 

[Care4all]

Texas tried something similar, when they tried to say schools DID NOT have to support illegal immigrant children in to their schools because they were not here legally... SC ruled Texas was WRONG.

• Opinion
• Annotation

• Syllabus
• Case

U.S. Supreme Court
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
Plyler v. Doe

No. 80-1538

Argued December 1, 1981

Decided June 15, 1982*

457 U.S. 202

Syllabus

Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Pp. 457 U. S. 210-230.

(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 457 U. S. 210-216.

MORE AT THE LINK Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

Same will happen here...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

what what means? what's your point? that you want to decide citizenship of children based on what you think the kid's parents are allegiant to?

do you see anything about allegiance in the 14th amendment?

We were talking about the Supreme Court case (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) keep up with the conversation.

the one based on the 14th amendment. so do you see anything about allegiance in the 14th amendment? why do you think allegiance matters?

Why does allegiance matter?
Would you rather the USA be Mexico?

what i want is irrelevant - as is your question.
do you see anything about allegiance in the 14th amendment?

You have a one track mind.
You have taken it out of context.
No one has said that the word is in the 14th amendment.
We were talking about the Supreme Court case:
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.

Which means he was born an American, and was still an American when he returned from China. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

 

[Jackson]

Except that's completely unconstitutional.

Funny how once upon a few years ago the wingnuts all claimed that they were going to protect the Constitution.

Lying idiots.

Senator Howard, who wrote the 14th amendment also wrote this essay on the amendment:

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.

For those who want to protect the constitution, this shows illegal aliens are not covered under the 14th amendment.
I would guess the true idiot is one who does not do their research.

What he said was that THOSE foreigners, the aliens that are here on Diplomatic missions for the USA from a foreign nation, their children and their children alone, are not citizens if born on this soil while working for a foreign Nation, but ALL OTHERS ARE CITIZENS if born on this soil....

THIS is how his statement has been interpreted ever since....these foreigners have ''Diplomatic Immunity'' and ARE NOT under the JURISDICTION of the USA....thus their children can NOT be born citizens on our soil.

Did you forget the word "aliens?" There's a matter of allegiance as well. Those aliens can go through the process of getting citizenship and pledging their allegiance to the US. It's not that they can't be citizens at all. Go back and start over.

you need to re-read that quote. it's about adding the phrase 'and under the jurisdiction thereof'
stating that it would not apply to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers accredited to the us, those foreigners and aliens, doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to all foreigners and aliens.

It appears that this is not going to be settled on a message board, but by the SCOTUS. Maybe it will take a special Act, as it did with the Indians.

 

[peach174]

Senator Howard, who wrote the 14th amendment also wrote this essay on the amendment:

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.

For those who want to protect the constitution, this shows illegal aliens are not covered under the 14th amendment.
I would guess the true idiot is one who does not do their research.

Irony. You did not do your research.

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

You all may all read Jacob Howard's comments along with me from the Congressional Record. I will bold the most important part, and color the piece which was selectively taken out of context by Jackson:

"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."

Unfortunately, Jacob Howard did not realize the depth of mental incapacity of future nativists when he uttered that last sentence.

Howard, the sponsor of the 14th amendment, was clearly saying that only the foreign/alien children born here of ambassadors and foreign ministers are not citizens and that everyone else is.

He removed all doubt.

I assert he would have said " This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States 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." if that was what he meant. He made a point of saying, foreigners, comma, aliens, comma who belong to the families of ambassadors. Istead of commans, he could have listed the same as, what commas sometimes intend. Like this

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.

again, you're missing the meaning of those words. they do not mean what you are claiming.
it's also hard to credit the punctuation to him when he only spoke the words and did not write them.

i would say that if they were to mean what you claim and he was making a list he would have needed to throw in an 'and' or 'or'

What do you think the word Alien means?

 

[ogibillm]

Senator Howard, who wrote the 14th amendment also wrote this essay on the amendment:

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.

For those who want to protect the constitution, this shows illegal aliens are not covered under the 14th amendment.
I would guess the true idiot is one who does not do their research.

Irony. You did not do your research.

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

You all may all read Jacob Howard's comments along with me from the Congressional Record. I will bold the most important part, and color the piece which was selectively taken out of context by Jackson:

"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."

Unfortunately, Jacob Howard did not realize the depth of mental incapacity of future nativists when he uttered that last sentence.

Howard, the sponsor of the 14th amendment, was clearly saying that only the foreign/alien children born here of ambassadors and foreign ministers are not citizens and that everyone else is.

He removed all doubt.

I assert he would have said " This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States 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." if that was what he meant. He made a point of saying, foreigners, comma, aliens, comma who belong to the families of ambassadors. Istead of commans, he could have listed the same as, what commas sometimes intend. Like this

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.

again, you're missing the meaning of those words. they do not mean what you are claiming.
it's also hard to credit the punctuation to him when he only spoke the words and did not write them.

i would say that if they were to mean what you claim and he was making a list he would have needed to throw in an 'and' or 'or'

I wasn't aware that he didn't write this. Can you give me a link to that?

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
it was in the senate floor debate on the insertion of the phrase 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'

 

[ogibillm]

Except that's completely unconstitutional.

Funny how once upon a few years ago the wingnuts all claimed that they were going to protect the Constitution.

Lying idiots.

Senator Howard, who wrote the 14th amendment also wrote this essay on the amendment:

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.

For those who want to protect the constitution, this shows illegal aliens are not covered under the 14th amendment.
I would guess the true idiot is one who does not do their research.

What he said was that THOSE foreigners, the aliens that are here on Diplomatic missions for the USA from a foreign nation, their children and their children alone, are not citizens if born on this soil while working for a foreign Nation, but ALL OTHERS ARE CITIZENS if born on this soil....

THIS is how his statement has been interpreted ever since....these foreigners have ''Diplomatic Immunity'' and ARE NOT under the JURISDICTION of the USA....thus their children can NOT be born citizens on our soil.

Did you forget the word "aliens?" There's a matter of allegiance as well. Those aliens can go through the process of getting citizenship and pledging their allegiance to the US. It's not that they can't be citizens at all. Go back and start over.

you need to re-read that quote. it's about adding the phrase 'and under the jurisdiction thereof'
stating that it would not apply to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers accredited to the us, those foreigners and aliens, doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to all foreigners and aliens.

It appears that this is not going to be settled on a message board, but by the SCOTUS. Maybe it will take a special Act, as it did with the Indians.

it has been settled, and the language is clear.

 

[peach174]

We were talking about the Supreme Court case (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) keep up with the conversation.

the one based on the 14th amendment. so do you see anything about allegiance in the 14th amendment? why do you think allegiance matters?

Why does allegiance matter?
Would you rather the USA be Mexico?

what i want is irrelevant - as is your question.
do you see anything about allegiance in the 14th amendment?

You have a one track mind.
You have taken it out of context.
No one has said that the word is in the 14th amendment.
We were talking about the Supreme Court case:
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.

Which means he was born an American, and was still an American when he returned from China. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Why can't you understand that his parents was here legally under American laws?

 

[ogibillm]

Senator Howard, who wrote the 14th amendment also wrote this essay on the amendment:

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.

For those who want to protect the constitution, this shows illegal aliens are not covered under the 14th amendment.
I would guess the true idiot is one who does not do their research.

Irony. You did not do your research.

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

You all may all read Jacob Howard's comments along with me from the Congressional Record. I will bold the most important part, and color the piece which was selectively taken out of context by Jackson:

"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."

Unfortunately, Jacob Howard did not realize the depth of mental incapacity of future nativists when he uttered that last sentence.

Howard, the sponsor of the 14th amendment, was clearly saying that only the foreign/alien children born here of ambassadors and foreign ministers are not citizens and that everyone else is.

He removed all doubt.

I assert he would have said " This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States 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." if that was what he meant. He made a point of saying, foreigners, comma, aliens, comma who belong to the families of ambassadors. Istead of commans, he could have listed the same as, what commas sometimes intend. Like this

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.

again, you're missing the meaning of those words. they do not mean what you are claiming.
it's also hard to credit the punctuation to him when he only spoke the words and did not write them.

i would say that if they were to mean what you claim and he was making a list he would have needed to throw in an 'and' or 'or'

What do you think the word Alien means?

foreigner. what do you think it means?

 

[ogibillm]

the one based on the 14th amendment. so do you see anything about allegiance in the 14th amendment? why do you think allegiance matters?

Why does allegiance matter?
Would you rather the USA be Mexico?

what i want is irrelevant - as is your question.
do you see anything about allegiance in the 14th amendment?

You have a one track mind.
You have taken it out of context.
No one has said that the word is in the 14th amendment.
We were talking about the Supreme Court case:
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.

Which means he was born an American, and was still an American when he returned from China. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Why can't you understand that his parents was here legally under American laws?

i think everyone understands that.
it's just irrelevant.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Texas tried something similar, when they tried to say schools DID NOT have to support illegal immigrant children in to their schools because they were not here legally... SC ruled Texas was WRONG.

• Opinion
• Annotation

• Syllabus
• Case

U.S. Supreme Court
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
Plyler v. Doe

No. 80-1538

Argued December 1, 1981

Decided June 15, 1982*

457 U.S. 202

Syllabus

Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Pp. 457 U. S. 210-230.

(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 457 U. S. 210-216.

MORE AT THE LINK Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

Same will happen here...

Same thing already has happened. In the case at hand it's clear that all they care about, in nearly all cases, is where were you born and not how did mommy and daddy get there? The dissent is very clear on this.

 

[Jackson]

Texas tried something similar, when they tried to say schools DID NOT have to support illegal immigrant children in to their schools because they were not here legally... SC ruled Texas was WRONG.

• Opinion
• Annotation

• Syllabus
• Case

U.S. Supreme Court
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
Plyler v. Doe

No. 80-1538

Argued December 1, 1981

Decided June 15, 1982*

457 U.S. 202

Syllabus

Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Pp. 457 U. S. 210-230.

(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 457 U. S. 210-216.

MORE AT THE LINK Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

Same will happen here...

"the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory."

This offers another look that equal protection extends to citizens or stranger (foreigners or aliens) who are subject to the laws of the state...

 

[Jackson]

Senator Howard, who wrote the 14th amendment also wrote this essay on the amendment:

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.

For those who want to protect the constitution, this shows illegal aliens are not covered under the 14th amendment.
I would guess the true idiot is one who does not do their research.

What he said was that THOSE foreigners, the aliens that are here on Diplomatic missions for the USA from a foreign nation, their children and their children alone, are not citizens if born on this soil while working for a foreign Nation, but ALL OTHERS ARE CITIZENS if born on this soil....

THIS is how his statement has been interpreted ever since....these foreigners have ''Diplomatic Immunity'' and ARE NOT under the JURISDICTION of the USA....thus their children can NOT be born citizens on our soil.

Did you forget the word "aliens?" There's a matter of allegiance as well. Those aliens can go through the process of getting citizenship and pledging their allegiance to the US. It's not that they can't be citizens at all. Go back and start over.

you need to re-read that quote. it's about adding the phrase 'and under the jurisdiction thereof'
stating that it would not apply to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers accredited to the us, those foreigners and aliens, doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to all foreigners and aliens.

It appears that this is not going to be settled on a message board, but by the SCOTUS. Maybe it will take a special Act, as it did with the Indians.

it has been settled, and the language is clear.

If it was clear, it wouldn't be debated all over the US

 

[ogibillm]

What he said was that THOSE foreigners, the aliens that are here on Diplomatic missions for the USA from a foreign nation, their children and their children alone, are not citizens if born on this soil while working for a foreign Nation, but ALL OTHERS ARE CITIZENS if born on this soil....

THIS is how his statement has been interpreted ever since....these foreigners have ''Diplomatic Immunity'' and ARE NOT under the JURISDICTION of the USA....thus their children can NOT be born citizens on our soil.

Did you forget the word "aliens?" There's a matter of allegiance as well. Those aliens can go through the process of getting citizenship and pledging their allegiance to the US. It's not that they can't be citizens at all. Go back and start over.

you need to re-read that quote. it's about adding the phrase 'and under the jurisdiction thereof'
stating that it would not apply to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers accredited to the us, those foreigners and aliens, doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to all foreigners and aliens.

It appears that this is not going to be settled on a message board, but by the SCOTUS. Maybe it will take a special Act, as it did with the Indians.

it has been settled, and the language is clear.

If it was clear, it wouldn't be debated all over the US

it's clear, there are just a lot of dumbasses that hate mexicans.

let me ask you - what language in the 14th amendment makes you believe that the children of foreigners born in the united states are not citizens of the united states?