Trump Is Demonstrably Right About the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship

The original intent of the 14th was to ENCOURAGE immigration. America had all this land and no one to settle it.

We only made immigration "illegal" when white people stopped showing up because Europe is much nicer now.
/—-/ No it wasn’t. Get an education: Fourteenth Amendment | Definition, Summary, Rights, Significance, & Facts | Britannica
Fourteenth Amendment, amendment (1868) to the Constitution of the United Statesthat granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War, including them under the umbrella phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”
 
No. The heritage foundation is, as usual, attempting to blow smoke up our collective asses.

This question was settled back in the late 1800s in the case of United States vs, Wong Kim Ark.

The Supreme Court addressed the meaning of this key provision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to parents who were both Chinese citizens. At age 21, he took a trip to China to visit his parents. When he returned to the United States, he was denied entry on the ground that he was not a U.S. citizen. In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. Because he was born in the United States and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically made him a U.S. citizen.

thanks Captain Google.
 
Dude, wake up. Barack Obama and Joe Biden both deported more people than tRump.
What's better? To let in 30 million and deport 1 million like Obama-Biden, or to let in 1 million and deport 750K? We're talking net here, "dude".
 
No. The heritage foundation is, as usual, attempting to blow smoke up our collective asses.



The Supreme Court addressed the meaning of this key provision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to parents who were both Chinese citizens. At age 21, he took a trip to China to visit his parents. When he returned to the United States, he was denied entry on the ground that he was not a U.S. citizen. In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. Because he was born in the United States and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically made him a U.S. citizen.

"Collective asses". That's a great name for the people who opened our border and flooded our country with illegal aliens. Trumpy is fixing it.
 
The original intent of the 14th was to ENCOURAGE immigration. America had all this land and no one to settle it.

We only made immigration "illegal" when white people stopped showing up because Europe is much nicer now.
Is there no end to your ignorance? The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with immigration. It was proposed and enacted after the Civil War to ensure that former slaves and free blacks were granted citizenship.

As I document in the OP, during the debates on the 14th Amendment, the authors of the amendment explained that it would not even grant citizenship to American Indians, and the first Supreme Court rulings specified that it would not grant citizenship to newborns whose parents were foreign diplomats stationed in the U.S.

And we never "made immigration illegal." Wow, where do you get your nonsense, Jihad Joe? I mean, in what alternate reality did the U.S. ever ban all immigration? We made crossing our borders without our permission illegal, but we also set up a system for people to enter our country legally.

Let's add this to your list of howlers: "the U.S. made immigration illegal." Do you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself?
 
/—-/ No it wasn’t. Get an education: Fourteenth Amendment | Definition, Summary, Rights, Significance, & Facts | Britannica
Fourteenth Amendment, amendment (1868) to the Constitution of the United Statesthat granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War, including them under the umbrella phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”

Which means anyone born here is a citizen. Why are we still discussing this?

If you don't like it, amend the constitution.

Is there no end to your ignorance? The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with immigration. It was proposed and enacted after the Civil War to ensure that former slaves and free blacks were granted citizenship.

As I document in the OP, during the debates on the 14th Amendment, the authors of the amendment explained that it would not even grant citizenship to American Indians, and the first Supreme Court rulings specified that it would not grant citizenship to newborns whose parents were foreign diplomats stationed in the U.S.

Neither of whom are immigrants. You see, birthright citizenship, when America was trying to attract (white) immigrants from Europe, was actually a selling point. Even before the 14th Amendment, the practice of English Common Law was that if you were born here, you were a citizen.

And we never "made immigration illegal." Wow, where do you get your nonsense, Jihad Joe? I mean, in what alternate reality did the U.S. ever ban all immigration? We made crossing our borders without our permission illegal, but we also set up a system for people to enter our country legally.

That's the point. You see, prior to the 1950s or so, anyone from Latin America could travel to the US legally. Asians were excluded and there were limits on Europeans from certain countries. We keep shifting the goalposts of who we want and for what reasons.
 
Which means anyone born here is a citizen. Why are we still discussing this?

If you don't like it, amend the constitution.



Neither of whom are immigrants. You see, birthright citizenship, when America was trying to attract (white) immigrants from Europe, was actually a selling point. Even before the 14th Amendment, the practice of English Common Law was that if you were born here, you were a citizen.



That's the point. You see, prior to the 1950s or so, anyone from Latin America could travel to the US legally. Asians were excluded and there were limits on Europeans from certain countries. We keep shifting the goalposts of who we want and for what reasons.
/----/ "Which means anyone born here is a citizen. Why are we still discussing this?"
We're still discussing this because your TDS libtards won't admit what is clearly stated in the Constitution.

Clearly, it doesn't. It does not apply to diplomats or invader armies. A prego Mexican woman who enters the US illegally is still "subject to the jurisdiction" of Mexico, not the US.
Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
 
We're still discussing this because your TDS libtards won't admit what is clearly stated in the Constitution.

If you are born here, you are a citizen. that's very clearly stated, and it's been precedent for 126 years since the Wong decision.

Clearly, it doesn't. It does not apply to diplomats or invader armies. A prego Mexican woman who enters the US illegally is still "subject to the jurisdiction" of Mexico, not the US.

Except by that logic, you could never charge an undocumented immigrant with a crime. That guy who offed Laken Riley? Got to send him back to Venezuela, he isn't subject to our jurisdiction.

Now, obviously, there is an exemption for diplomats, in that they have diplomatic immunity. All we can do when they commit a crime is ask them to leave.

(Somehow, I don't think invading armies, which we haven't seen since 1815, are dropping babies anywhere.)

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Except the Amendment doesn't say any of that.
 
If you are born here, you are a citizen. that's very clearly stated, and it's been precedent for 126 years since the Wong decision.



Except by that logic, you could never charge an undocumented immigrant with a crime. That guy who offed Laken Riley? Got to send him back to Venezuela, he isn't subject to our jurisdiction.

Now, obviously, there is an exemption for diplomats, in that they have diplomatic immunity. All we can do when they commit a crime is ask them to leave.

(Somehow, I don't think invading armies, which we haven't seen since 1815, are dropping babies anywhere.)



Except the Amendment doesn't say any of that.
/----/ "Except by that logic, you could never charge an undocumented immigrant with a crime. "
How stupid. Of course, an illegal alien can be charged for violating our laws, including entering teh US illegally. You're just grasping at straws and making yourself look plain stupid.
 
Birthright citizenship makes national security almost impossible and it makes invasion highly probable. Democrats and neocons are immigration idiots.
The election of trump has made national security impossible. Look at his cabinet picks. Idiots and punks.
 
Trump is wrong about birthright citizenship.
 
"Collective asses". That's a great name for the people who opened our border and flooded our country with illegal aliens. Trumpy is fixing it.
Stop with the propaganda and try to make a reasoned response.
 
It is revealing the when the 14th Amendment was debated in Congress, its authors explained that it would not even grant citizenship to American Indians. That's why American Indians did not become citizens until 1924 when Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act. This legislation was necessary because everyone understood what the 14th Amendment did and did not mean. Since the amendment did not confer citizenship on American Indians, how could anyone construe it as giving citizenship to children born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally, either after sneaking across the border or overstaying their visa?
I like the irony there, the immigrants to America didn't give the indigenous inhabitants citizenship until 1924 !!
 
/----/ "Except by that logic, you could never charge an undocumented immigrant with a crime. "
How stupid. Of course, an illegal alien can be charged for violating our laws, including entering teh US illegally. You're just grasping at straws and making yourself look plain stupid.

But that's the problem, guy, if they are subject to our laws, then their children are citizens if they are born here.

We don't punish children for the crimes of their parents.

Don't like it? Amend the constitution to fix this "non-problem".
 
But that's the problem, guy, if they are subject to our laws, then their children are citizens if they are born here.

We don't punish children for the crimes of their parents.

Don't like it? Amend the constitution to fix this "non-problem".
/—/ The law says one of the parents must be a US citizen. You’re just arguing a stupid point to get attention.
 
/—/ The law says one of the parents must be a US citizen. You’re just arguing a stupid point to get attention.

Which law is that.

The Amendment is pretty clear.

1738284898335.webp


Not a thing inthere about one of the parents needing to be an American.
 
The 14th Amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to children born to parents who are in the U.S. illegally. This is not even a close call. One early Supreme Court case ruled that the amendment did not even grant citizenship to newborns whose parents were foreign diplomats stationed in the U.S.

Proponents of birthright citizenship wrongly cite the 1898 Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, when in fact that case involved the children of lawful permanent residents, not the children of illegal immigrants. Wong Kim Ark actually went beyond original intent by including children of lawful permanent residents, but it stopped well short of granting citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil.

It is revealing the when the 14th Amendment was debated in Congress, its authors explained that it would not even grant citizenship to American Indians. That's why American Indians did not become citizens until 1924 when Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act. This legislation was necessary because everyone understood what the 14th Amendment did and did not mean. Since the amendment did not confer citizenship on American Indians, how could anyone construe it as giving citizenship to children born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally, either after sneaking across the border or overstaying their visa?

A key phrase in the 14th Amendment is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The authors of the amendment made it clear that this referred to full jurisdiction, not partial jurisdiction. Only U.S. citizens are subject to full U.S. jurisdiction. Being subject to the full jurisdiction of the U.S. means the U.S. Government can draft you into our military, require you to register for the draft, prosecute you for treason if you seek to harm the U.S., etc. The government can't do any of these things to illegal immigrants because they are not fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Illegal immigrants and foreign diplomats are only partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, which means, for example, that they have to obey our traffic laws and can be prosecuted if they commit a crime in our country (unless they have diplomatic immunity), but they cannot be drafted, cannot be forced to even register for the draft, cannot vote, cannot hold elected office, etc.

BTW, most nations in Europe, Asia, and Africa do not offer automatic birthright citizenship. The following nations do not offer birthright citizenship under any conditions or require that at least one parent be a citizen or a lawful permanent resident for the newborn to be granted citizenship: Norway, Sweden, Italy, Greece, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Austria, Bulgaria, Serbia, Albania, Denmark, South Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Japan.

Some sources for further reading:




It certainly should not cover pregnant women rushing the border crossings when they are about to give birth so their child is born on the US side of the bridge.
 
Back
Top Bottom