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

You wouldn't know critical thinking if you sat on it. All you do is issue inane, unsupported pronouncements and summary dismissals. I notice you have not laid a finger on any of the evidence I presented in the OP or in follow-up replies, as usual. Comically, you didn't even try to answer my question that you quoted.

Another question is, Since the authors of the 14th Amendment specified that it would not even grant birthright citizenship to the newborn children of foreign diplomats stationed in the U.S., many of whom live here for many years, how could anyone suppose that the amendment was intended to give birthright citizenship to children born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally?

Because back then, there were no restrictions on immigration. You got here, you were legal.

Not until the Chinese Exclusion Act did the government start to try to keep people out for not being "White and Delightsome", as your fake bible says.

And even then, the court had to admit, if you were born here, you were a citizen.

Even if your parents went back to China and you were a member of an undesireable group.
 
You wouldn't know critical thinking if you sat on it. All you do is issue inane, unsupported pronouncements and summary dismissals. I notice you have not laid a finger on any of the evidence I presented in the OP or in follow-up replies, as usual. Comically, you didn't even try to answer my question that you quoted.

Another question is, Since the authors of the 14th Amendment specified that it would not even grant birthright citizenship to the newborn children of foreign diplomats stationed in the U.S., many of whom live here for many years, how could anyone suppose that the amendment was intended to give birthright citizenship to children born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally?
Attacking me is silly. You are wrong. SCOTUS will uphold the status quo on citizenship. You don't think well, and this you are clearly in error. Enjoy yourself in quorum today.
 
Because back then, there were no restrictions on immigration. You got here, you were legal.

Not until the Chinese Exclusion Act did the government start to try to keep people out for not being "White and Delightsome", as your fake bible says.

And even then, the court had to admit, if you were born here, you were a citizen.

Even if your parents went back to China and you were a member of an undesireable group.
You are so obvious it's ridiculous.
 
Because back then, there were no restrictions on immigration. You got here, you were legal. Not until the Chinese Exclusion Act did the government start to try to keep people out for not being "White and Delightsome", as your fake bible says. And even then, the court had to admit, if you were born here, you were a citizen. Even if your parents went back to China and you were a member of an undesireable group.
I already answered these arguments. As usual, you ignore my replies and the facts they present and just repeat your arguments. Here is one of my previous replies to Jihad Joe's nonsense on this issue:

Which means anyone born here is a citizen. Why are we still discussing this?
You would look at a globe of the Earth and say "which means the Earth is flat. Why are we still discussing this?"

You have not explained a single fact that I've documented.

And I ask you again, when did the U.S. ever make immigration illegal? When?

If you don't like it, amend the constitution.
No need. The authors of the 14th Amendment were crystal clear about what the amendment did and did not intend. You just don't like what they specified, so you ignore it.

Neither of whom are immigrants.
Just shaking my head at this illogic. Let's try this: If the authors of the 14th Amendment stipulated that the amendment would not grant citizenship to native peoples who were already here, and if early Supreme Court rulings ruled that the amendment did not even grant citizenship to newborns whose parents were here legally as foreign diplomats, how in the world can you imagine that the amendment was intended to grant citizenship to children whose parents are violating our laws just by being here?

And you keep refusing to distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal 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.
LOL! For one thing, I guess you've never heard of the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was passed just two years after the Constitution was ratified and one year after the Constitution took effect??? Ring any bells? Under the terms of the act, the vast majority of the illegal immigrants now in our country would not qualify for citizenship.

It took a while for the first generation of American leaders to establish immigration policy after our founding. We were, after all, a new country, and we had just fought a bloody five-year war to gain independence. Again, under the terms of the Naturalization Act of 1790, passed just two years after the Constitution was ratified, nearly all the illegal immigrants now in our country would not qualify for citizenship.

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.
"That's the point"?! You said this to justify your howler that the U.S. once banned immigration! Your evasion does nothing to explain away your howler, much less justify your bogus argument that the 14th Amendment was intended to give birthright citizenship to children whose parents are here illegally.

And, uh, yeah, we have the right to change our immigration laws as we see fit and in response to changing circumstances, just as other nations do.

FYI, Ireland ended unrestricted birthright citizenship in 2004 after 79% of voters supported a constitutional amendment that made citizenship conditional on the parents' residency and history. The Dominican Republic abolished birthright citizenship in 2013, which removed citizenship from about 200,000 people.

As mentioned in the OP, a number of nations in Europe, Asia, and Africa do not offer birthright citizenship under any conditions, while others require that at least one parent be a citizen or a lawful permanent resident for the newborn to be granted citizenship. Which nations are we talking about? Well, they include Norway, Sweden, Italy, Greece, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Ireland, Austria, Bulgaria, Serbia, Albania, Denmark, South Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Japan, among others.

LINK
 
mike comes up with nothing new at all to convince SCOTUS differently.

The law of the land on citizenship will not change at all.

Just because Mike reposts his defeated arguments overr and over again does not mean they have to be refuted over and over again.

"No" suffices.
 
" Do Not Stop At Some Of The Clause Keep Going "

* Syntactical Blinders *

Which law is that.
The Amendment is pretty clear.
View attachment 1072710
Not a thing inthere about one of the parents needing to be an American.
That would be the term THEREOF .

If you disagree , explain the term THEREOF and its relationship with us 14th amendment .


* Also *

mikegriffith1 , stop misapplying the term right and perpetuating stupidity of the public .

 
Last edited:
" Do Not Stop At Some Of The Clause Keep Going "

* Syntactical Blinders *


That would be the term THEREOF .

If you disagree , explain the term THEREOF and its relationship with us 14th amendment .
This has been decided long ago.

SCOTUS will not hear it.
 
" Not Decided And Time To Revisit Us Sovereignty And Solvency "

* Will Be Heard If Political Fee Press And Jurisprudence Pulls Its Head Out Its Ass *

This has been decided long ago.
SCOTUS will not hear it.
The kim wrong ark did not cover illegal migrants , it only covered migrants whom were subjects by title in us legal immigration system .

If strump keeps muttering about illegal migrants not being subject to us jurisdiction , as do idiots , rather than accentuating and emphasizing the entire clause and the term THEREOF , your supposition might be true .

The center for reproductive freedom and abortion choice leadership spent 50 years babbling that roe v wade was based on a rite to privacy , rather than equal protection based upon a live birth requirement , and we all see how that idiocy turned out .
 
I already answered these arguments. As usual, you ignore my replies and the facts they present and just repeat your arguments. Here is one of my previous replies to Jihad Joe's nonsense on this issue:

No one was arguing the shape of the Earth, you Mormon Twatnoodle.

No need. The authors of the 14th Amendment were crystal clear about what the amendment did and did not intend. You just don't like what they specified, so you ignore it.

Crystal Clear would have specifically wrote into the Amendment "No immigrants". It didn't.

Just shaking my head at this illogic. Let's try this: If the authors of the 14th Amendment stipulated that the amendment would not grant citizenship to native peoples who were already here, and if early Supreme Court rulings ruled that the amendment did not even grant citizenship to newborns whose parents were here legally as foreign diplomats, how in the world can you imagine that the amendment was intended to grant citizenship to children whose parents are violating our laws just by being here?

Because at the time there were no such laws.

Diplomats were covered by various treaties we had with their countries.
Native Americans had the polite fiction that they were independent nations who we had treaties with. (The reality is, those treaties were worthless and we genocided the fuck out of them whenever we wanted something they had.)

Immigration was never the issue. In fact, they WANTED immigrants from Europe at the time to work in the factories and provide farmers for all that land we were stealing from the Native Americans. And they wanted those immigrants to have kids to work in those factories, because Child Labor was a thing then.


LOL! For one thing, I guess you've never heard of the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was passed just two years after the Constitution was ratified and one year after the Constitution took effect??? Ring any bells? Under the terms of the act, the vast majority of the illegal immigrants now in our country would not qualify for citizenship.

Not sure why you pine for 1790 laws... where only white males who owned land had any rights.

It took a while for the first generation of American leaders to establish immigration policy after our founding. We were, after all, a new country, and we had just fought a bloody five-year war to gain independence. Again, under the terms of the Naturalization Act of 1790, passed just two years after the Constitution was ratified, nearly all the illegal immigrants now in our country would not qualify for citizenship.

But their children would, that's the point. No one debated the CHILDREN of immigrants were citizens at the time.

"That's the point"?! You said this to justify your howler that the U.S. once banned immigration! Your evasion does nothing to explain away your howler, much less justify your bogus argument that the 14th Amendment was intended to give birthright citizenship to children whose parents are here illegally.

Because there were no "illegal immigrants" until the Chinese Exclusion Act, and even then, they had to admit Chinese born here were citizens even if their parents weren't.

FYI, Ireland ended unrestricted birthright citizenship in 2004 after 79% of voters supported a constitutional amendment that made citizenship conditional on the parents' residency and history. The Dominican Republic abolished birthright citizenship in 2013, which removed citizenship from about 200,000 people.

That's nice. Not sure why you aspire to be more like poor, third-world countries.

Amend the constitution if you don't like the laws as they currently are. I don't think you'll succeed.

As mentioned in the OP, a number of nations in Europe, Asia, and Africa do not offer birthright citizenship under any conditions, while others require that at least one parent be a citizen or a lawful permanent resident for the newborn to be granted citizenship. Which nations are we talking about? Well, they include Norway, Sweden, Italy, Greece, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Ireland, Austria, Bulgaria, Serbia, Albania, Denmark, South Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Japan, among others.

Again, so what? Hey, guy, if you want to use "What other countries have" let's have socialized medicine and sensible gun laws.
 
" Not Decided And Time To Revisit Us Sovereignty And Solvency "

* Will Be Heard If Political Fee Press And Jurisprudence Pulls Its Head Out Its Ass *


The kim wrong ark did not cover illegal migrants , it only covered migrants whom were subjects by title in us legal immigration system .

If strump keeps muttering about illegal migrants not being subject to us jurisdiction , as do idiots , rather than accentuating and emphasizing the entire clause and the term THEREOF , your supposition might be true .

The center for reproductive freedom and abortion choice leadership spent 50 years babbling that roe v wade was based on a rite to privacy , rather than equal protection based upon a live birth requirement , and we all see how that idiocy turned out .
Those were not germane then, and they were answered. Anyone not a child of foreign diplomats are citizens if born here. That includes illegal immigrants.
 
BYU produces some strange people like Mike or Clark Gifford or Lew Midgely for some reason.

So many are not weird, though.
 
BYU produces some strange people like Mike or Clark Gifford or Lew Midgely for some reason.

So many are not weird, though.
While I never pass up a chance to riff on Mormons, Mike is a particularly weird dude.

If you want to really go down a rabbit hole of crazy, click on his "Real Issues" web page.

Among other bits of crazy there.

OJ was innocent.
The Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor
The Rape of Nanking wasn't as bad as people say it was.
Evolution is a hoax.
John Wilkes Booth was framed by Radical Republicans
Wounded Knee was a justified military action. (I guess those women and children were dangerous).

Wait, he's taken down the OJ and Nanking Stuff. I guess even he realized it was crazy.

It was actually awful to watch him slander Iris Chang, an academic who documented the horrors of Nanking, and eventually took her own life due to severe depression.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom