Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Diplomats aren't subject to our jurisdiction. They could get away with murder because we can't prosecute them. Aliens that are not diplomats do not enjoy that protection because they are under our jurisdiction.that's undoubtedly an illegal act and the parent could be prosecuted and deportedsave your sighs, that isn't in the amendment, and it doesn't say what you want it to anyway.{{sigh...}} 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.
so what part of the 14th amendment do you think excludes the children of illegal immigrants born in the united states?
Where does it say you can come here illegally and have your kid?
doesn't change that the kid would be a citizen - unless you can point to a part of the 14th amendment that excludes the children of illegal immigrants?
There is no reason why we can't write laws that would exclude them.
Changing the status quo would appear to require a constitutional amendment, a number of legal scholars disagree, concluding that nothing in the plain language of the amendment requires the present, expansive interpretation of birthright citizenship, and noting that the peculiar phrase in Section 1 referring to persons who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” would in fact seem to imply otherwise.
You know another strong precedent set the same year? The Separate but Equal Doctrine of Plessy vs Ferguson! Interestingly Justice Harlan was the dissent in that case also (like he was in Wong). Brown vs the Board of Education used this infamous phrase,"the law is colorblind."Because it matters very little, and when we finally do the obvious, and grant blanket citizenship, again, this issue dies. You aren't going to be deporting them, and the anchor baby concept is a loser that the court ruled on more than 100 years ago. Your side lost.You'll never get it passed. And these big bills you think you are paying, aren't...As I said, good luck, you'll need it.Yup and that's why they need to amend the amendment.
Try again.
Nope the taxpayers of America will need it.
Try again.
WOW some crystal ball you have there. And where do you get I'll never get it passed??
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.
No, the constitution gives citizenship. 14th amendment.Diplomats aren't subject to our jurisdiction. They could get away with murder because we can't prosecute them. Aliens that are not diplomats do not enjoy that protection because they are under our jurisdiction.that's undoubtedly an illegal act and the parent could be prosecuted and deportedsave your sighs, that isn't in the amendment, and it doesn't say what you want it to anyway.
so what part of the 14th amendment do you think excludes the children of illegal immigrants born in the united states?
Where does it say you can come here illegally and have your kid?
doesn't change that the kid would be a citizen - unless you can point to a part of the 14th amendment that excludes the children of illegal immigrants?
There is no reason why we can't write laws that would exclude them.
Changing the status quo would appear to require a constitutional amendment, a number of legal scholars disagree, concluding that nothing in the plain language of the amendment requires the present, expansive interpretation of birthright citizenship, and noting that the peculiar phrase in Section 1 referring to persons who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” would in fact seem to imply otherwise.
Yes and that means we can write laws against illegals who give birth here.
Federal law (not the Constitution) gives citizenship to an estimated minimum 400,000 babies each year who don't have even one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal immigrant.
No, the constitution gives citizenship. 14th amendment.Diplomats aren't subject to our jurisdiction. They could get away with murder because we can't prosecute them. Aliens that are not diplomats do not enjoy that protection because they are under our jurisdiction.that's undoubtedly an illegal act and the parent could be prosecuted and deportedWhere does it say you can come here illegally and have your kid?
doesn't change that the kid would be a citizen - unless you can point to a part of the 14th amendment that excludes the children of illegal immigrants?
There is no reason why we can't write laws that would exclude them.
Changing the status quo would appear to require a constitutional amendment, a number of legal scholars disagree, concluding that nothing in the plain language of the amendment requires the present, expansive interpretation of birthright citizenship, and noting that the peculiar phrase in Section 1 referring to persons who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” would in fact seem to imply otherwise.
Yes and that means we can write laws against illegals who give birth here.
Federal law (not the Constitution) gives citizenship to an estimated minimum 400,000 babies each year who don't have even one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal immigrant.
Lol, babies aren't lawbreakers.No, the constitution gives citizenship. 14th amendment.Diplomats aren't subject to our jurisdiction. They could get away with murder because we can't prosecute them. Aliens that are not diplomats do not enjoy that protection because they are under our jurisdiction.that's undoubtedly an illegal act and the parent could be prosecuted and deported
doesn't change that the kid would be a citizen - unless you can point to a part of the 14th amendment that excludes the children of illegal immigrants?
There is no reason why we can't write laws that would exclude them.
Changing the status quo would appear to require a constitutional amendment, a number of legal scholars disagree, concluding that nothing in the plain language of the amendment requires the present, expansive interpretation of birthright citizenship, and noting that the peculiar phrase in Section 1 referring to persons who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” would in fact seem to imply otherwise.
Yes and that means we can write laws against illegals who give birth here.
Federal law (not the Constitution) gives citizenship to an estimated minimum 400,000 babies each year who don't have even one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal immigrant.
Not to law breakers.
Lol, babies aren't lawbreakers.No, the constitution gives citizenship. 14th amendment.Diplomats aren't subject to our jurisdiction. They could get away with murder because we can't prosecute them. Aliens that are not diplomats do not enjoy that protection because they are under our jurisdiction.There is no reason why we can't write laws that would exclude them.
Changing the status quo would appear to require a constitutional amendment, a number of legal scholars disagree, concluding that nothing in the plain language of the amendment requires the present, expansive interpretation of birthright citizenship, and noting that the peculiar phrase in Section 1 referring to persons who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” would in fact seem to imply otherwise.
Yes and that means we can write laws against illegals who give birth here.
Federal law (not the Constitution) gives citizenship to an estimated minimum 400,000 babies each year who don't have even one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal immigrant.
Not to law breakers.
It meant for anyone who was born on us soil, except those with diplomatic immunity, to have U.S. citizenship. The amendment is very clear.Lol, babies aren't lawbreakers.No, the constitution gives citizenship. 14th amendment.Diplomats aren't subject to our jurisdiction. They could get away with murder because we can't prosecute them. Aliens that are not diplomats do not enjoy that protection because they are under our jurisdiction.
Yes and that means we can write laws against illegals who give birth here.
Federal law (not the Constitution) gives citizenship to an estimated minimum 400,000 babies each year who don't have even one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal immigrant.
Not to law breakers.
The parent who came here is.
It's absurd that we accept illegals who come here to give birth.
The 14th was never meant to be for those that are illegal to give birth here.
No it wasn't.It meant for anyone who was born on us soil, except those with diplomatic immunity, to have U.S. citizenship. The amendment is very clear.Lol, babies aren't lawbreakers.No, the constitution gives citizenship. 14th amendment.Yes and that means we can write laws against illegals who give birth here.
Federal law (not the Constitution) gives citizenship to an estimated minimum 400,000 babies each year who don't have even one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal immigrant.
Not to law breakers.
The parent who came here is.
It's absurd that we accept illegals who come here to give birth.
The 14th was never meant to be for those that are illegal to give birth here.
It meant for anyone who was born on us soil, except those with diplomatic immunity, to have U.S. citizenship. The amendment is very clear.Lol, babies aren't lawbreakers.No, the constitution gives citizenship. 14th amendment.Yes and that means we can write laws against illegals who give birth here.
Federal law (not the Constitution) gives citizenship to an estimated minimum 400,000 babies each year who don't have even one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal immigrant.
Not to law breakers.
The parent who came here is.
It's absurd that we accept illegals who come here to give birth.
The 14th was never meant to be for those that are illegal to give birth here.
Lol, babies aren't lawbreakers.No, the constitution gives citizenship. 14th amendment.Diplomats aren't subject to our jurisdiction. They could get away with murder because we can't prosecute them. Aliens that are not diplomats do not enjoy that protection because they are under our jurisdiction.
Yes and that means we can write laws against illegals who give birth here.
Federal law (not the Constitution) gives citizenship to an estimated minimum 400,000 babies each year who don't have even one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal immigrant.
Not to law breakers.
The parent who came here is.
It's absurd that we accept illegals who come here to give birth.
The 14th was never meant to be for those that are illegal to give birth here.
Lol, babies aren't lawbreakers.No, the constitution gives citizenship. 14th amendment.Yes and that means we can write laws against illegals who give birth here.
Federal law (not the Constitution) gives citizenship to an estimated minimum 400,000 babies each year who don't have even one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal immigrant.
Not to law breakers.
The parent who came here is.
It's absurd that we accept illegals who come here to give birth.
The 14th was never meant to be for those that are illegal to give birth here.
If that is so then the proper remedy is to challenge the current law in court.
yes, there is. it's the 14th amendment, a law contradictory to it would be unconstitutional.that's undoubtedly an illegal act and the parent could be prosecuted and deportedsave your sighs, that isn't in the amendment, and it doesn't say what you want it to anyway.{{sigh...}} 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.Jackson claims to have done so, but i can't find it. i'd really like to see where this idea stems from
so what part of the 14th amendment do you think excludes the children of illegal immigrants born in the united states?
Where does it say you can come here illegally and have your kid?
doesn't change that the kid would be a citizen - unless you can point to a part of the 14th amendment that excludes the children of illegal immigrants?
There is no reason why we can't write laws that would exclude them.
Changing the status quo would appear to require a constitutional amendment, a number of legal scholars disagree, concluding that nothing in the plain language of the amendment requires the present, expansive interpretation of birthright citizenship, and noting that the peculiar phrase in Section 1 referring to persons who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” would in fact seem to imply otherwise.
Correct.yes, there is. it's the 14th amendment, a law contradictory to it would be unconstitutional.that's undoubtedly an illegal act and the parent could be prosecuted and deportedsave your sighs, that isn't in the amendment, and it doesn't say what you want it to anyway.{{sigh...}} 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.
so what part of the 14th amendment do you think excludes the children of illegal immigrants born in the united states?
Where does it say you can come here illegally and have your kid?
doesn't change that the kid would be a citizen - unless you can point to a part of the 14th amendment that excludes the children of illegal immigrants?
There is no reason why we can't write laws that would exclude them.
Changing the status quo would appear to require a constitutional amendment, a number of legal scholars disagree, concluding that nothing in the plain language of the amendment requires the present, expansive interpretation of birthright citizenship, and noting that the peculiar phrase in Section 1 referring to persons who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” would in fact seem to imply otherwise.
the language is clear - unless you can show that an illegal alien is not subject to our laws?
we're having the discussion because you can't accept that reality doesn't match the way you'd like things to be.It meant for anyone who was born on us soil, except those with diplomatic immunity, to have U.S. citizenship. The amendment is very clear.Lol, babies aren't lawbreakers.No, the constitution gives citizenship. 14th amendment.
Not to law breakers.
The parent who came here is.
It's absurd that we accept illegals who come here to give birth.
The 14th was never meant to be for those that are illegal to give birth here.
No it isn't clear, this is why we are still having this discussion.
yes, there is. it's the 14th amendment, a law contradictory to it would be unconstitutional.that's undoubtedly an illegal act and the parent could be prosecuted and deportedsave your sighs, that isn't in the amendment, and it doesn't say what you want it to anyway.{{sigh...}} 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.
so what part of the 14th amendment do you think excludes the children of illegal immigrants born in the united states?
Where does it say you can come here illegally and have your kid?
doesn't change that the kid would be a citizen - unless you can point to a part of the 14th amendment that excludes the children of illegal immigrants?
There is no reason why we can't write laws that would exclude them.
Changing the status quo would appear to require a constitutional amendment, a number of legal scholars disagree, concluding that nothing in the plain language of the amendment requires the present, expansive interpretation of birthright citizenship, and noting that the peculiar phrase in Section 1 referring to persons who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” would in fact seem to imply otherwise.
the language is clear - unless you can show that an illegal alien is not subject to our laws?
You are absolutely right, Ravie, but why should illegals above everyone else get that protection via having a baby?Diplomats aren't subject to our jurisdiction. They could get away with murder because we can't prosecute them. Aliens that are not diplomats do not enjoy that protection because they are under our jurisdiction.that's undoubtedly an illegal act and the parent could be prosecuted and deportedsave your sighs, that isn't in the amendment, and it doesn't say what you want it to anyway.{{sigh...}} 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.
so what part of the 14th amendment do you think excludes the children of illegal immigrants born in the united states?
Where does it say you can come here illegally and have your kid?
doesn't change that the kid would be a citizen - unless you can point to a part of the 14th amendment that excludes the children of illegal immigrants?
There is no reason why we can't write laws that would exclude them.
Changing the status quo would appear to require a constitutional amendment, a number of legal scholars disagree, concluding that nothing in the plain language of the amendment requires the present, expansive interpretation of birthright citizenship, and noting that the peculiar phrase in Section 1 referring to persons who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” would in fact seem to imply otherwise.
you think an illegal alien that has a child is immune from prosecution?You are absolutely right, Ravie, but why should illegals above everyone else get that protection via having a baby?Diplomats aren't subject to our jurisdiction. They could get away with murder because we can't prosecute them. Aliens that are not diplomats do not enjoy that protection because they are under our jurisdiction.that's undoubtedly an illegal act and the parent could be prosecuted and deportedsave your sighs, that isn't in the amendment, and it doesn't say what you want it to anyway.
so what part of the 14th amendment do you think excludes the children of illegal immigrants born in the united states?
Where does it say you can come here illegally and have your kid?
doesn't change that the kid would be a citizen - unless you can point to a part of the 14th amendment that excludes the children of illegal immigrants?
There is no reason why we can't write laws that would exclude them.
Changing the status quo would appear to require a constitutional amendment, a number of legal scholars disagree, concluding that nothing in the plain language of the amendment requires the present, expansive interpretation of birthright citizenship, and noting that the peculiar phrase in Section 1 referring to persons who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” would in fact seem to imply otherwise.
What laws do illegals get above everyone else by having a baby? What law says they aren't treated the same as if no baby was involved?You are absolutely right, Ravie, but why should illegals above everyone else get that protection via having a baby?Diplomats aren't subject to our jurisdiction. They could get away with murder because we can't prosecute them. Aliens that are not diplomats do not enjoy that protection because they are under our jurisdiction.that's undoubtedly an illegal act and the parent could be prosecuted and deportedsave your sighs, that isn't in the amendment, and it doesn't say what you want it to anyway.
so what part of the 14th amendment do you think excludes the children of illegal immigrants born in the united states?
Where does it say you can come here illegally and have your kid?
doesn't change that the kid would be a citizen - unless you can point to a part of the 14th amendment that excludes the children of illegal immigrants?
There is no reason why we can't write laws that would exclude them.
Changing the status quo would appear to require a constitutional amendment, a number of legal scholars disagree, concluding that nothing in the plain language of the amendment requires the present, expansive interpretation of birthright citizenship, and noting that the peculiar phrase in Section 1 referring to persons who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” would in fact seem to imply otherwise.
No. They are protected from deportation.you think an illegal alien that has a child is immune from prosecution?You are absolutely right, Ravie, but why should illegals above everyone else get that protection via having a baby?Diplomats aren't subject to our jurisdiction. They could get away with murder because we can't prosecute them. Aliens that are not diplomats do not enjoy that protection because they are under our jurisdiction.that's undoubtedly an illegal act and the parent could be prosecuted and deportedWhere does it say you can come here illegally and have your kid?
doesn't change that the kid would be a citizen - unless you can point to a part of the 14th amendment that excludes the children of illegal immigrants?
There is no reason why we can't write laws that would exclude them.
Changing the status quo would appear to require a constitutional amendment, a number of legal scholars disagree, concluding that nothing in the plain language of the amendment requires the present, expansive interpretation of birthright citizenship, and noting that the peculiar phrase in Section 1 referring to persons who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” would in fact seem to imply otherwise.
